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: 12.23.05 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:17:27 -0800 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: December 23, 2005 Reminder: Should you ever find that an issue of the Rhizome Digest was truncated by your mail server, you can view the entire publication online, at http://rhizome.org/digest/ Content: +note+ 1. Lauren Cornell: A couple of notes on the new site +opportunity+ 2. Stephanie Martz: Mobile Exposure 2006 Call for Works 3. Jeremy Beaudry: CALL FOR ARTISTS - Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation 4. katerie gladdys: University of Florida Faculty Vacancy DIGITAL MEDIA ARTIST 5. messere AT oswego.edu: New Media Position at SUNY OSWEGO 6. Marisa Olson: Fwd: OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art, video, animation, shorts) 7. Vicente Matallana: Dead line remainder - ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS -worth 6.000. Euros 8. Marisa Olson: Southern Exposure announces call for proposals +announcement+ 9. Judith Fegerl: re|sonance|network|futures|005 catalog out now! 10. basak senova: ISTANBUL_04: Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance 11. Archive Registrar: _ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit 12. sachiko hayashi: Hz #7 +thread+ 13. T.Whid, Plasma Studii, marc, Jason Van Anden, patrick lichty, Rob Myers, Ryan Griffis, Jack Stenner, Eric Dymond, Plasma Studii, manik, miklos AT sympatico.ca, Jim Andrews, mark cooley, Pall Thayer, Gregory Little, napier, Zev Robinson, Dirk Vekemans, Joy Garnett, Bosah Pneumatic: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities. Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell AT Rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. From: Lauren Cornell <laurencornell AT rhizome.org> Date: Dec 19, 2005 11:38 PM Subject: A couple of notes on the new site Hi, So, as you may have noticed, we launched the new site this morning. We are fixing glitches now. I just wanted to point out a couple of small but significant text changes we made. First, we changed the title of 'Superusers' (those who filter messages from RAW onto the front page and to the mailing list RARE) to 'Site Editors.' This decision came out of a conversation with (those formerly known as) the Superusers in which we decided that the title Site Editor more accurately and clearly described the work they do. We also changed the 'Community Directory' to the 'Member Directory'. Under the new membership policy, Rhizome's community -- defined here as people who participate in email discussions and our various programs -- is now made up of Members and non-Members. So, again, we thought Member Directory was more accurate. We also introduced the idea of RhizPaper which refers to the background image on the site. We'd like to turn this image over periodically with a new image by a different artist. The starting image is a rendition of root by our designer, Sarah. I should credit Marisa here: She came up with this idea as a way to have artists participate in the design.. Also, we didn't switch over the title for Net Art News as we are still mulling over feedback and there are a couple of related technical issues we need to address that that got laid to the wayside as we headed towards the launch. So, stay tuned for that. All that said, let us know if you have any thoughts on the site. Things you like, things you cant tolerate, etc. :) Thanks, Lauren Director Rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. From: Stephanie Martz <stephanie AT microcinema.com> Date: Dec 16, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: Mobile Exposure 2006 Call for Works Mobile Exposure * An international touring exhibition of moving image art made by and for mobile devices * Presented by Microcinema International * Curators: Patrick Lichty and Microcinema International * Judges: Addictive TV (United Kingdom) * Excerpts to premiere at San Francisco International Film Festival * Deadline: Received by March 31, 2006 * Screenings: worldwide * Grand Prize: Panasonic AG-DVX100A 1/3" 3-CCD 24P/30P/60i DV Cinema Camera * Fees: US$5 * More information write: submissions AT microcinema.com TWO SCREENING PROGRAMS Mobile Exposure 2006 (moving images made by mobile devices) Mobile Exposure 2006 Video Ringtone Festival (on-line/on-mobile device) Mobile phones, PDA's, i-pods, and other hand-held devices have already gained widespread acceptance as tools to capture as well as experience music and photographs. Now these devices are being further designed and equipped with video capabilities - both for viewing as well as capturing. What are the potentials of the handheld device as a cinematic tool for expression, activism, experimentation, and exhibition? With the recent announcement of the i-pod video device and the Emmy Awards creation of a new mobile film category, the advancement of this medium is now a foregone conclusion...the train has left the station that is for sure, but on what track is it heading? How will viewing images on the small screen change our perception of the moving image arts? How will the moving image arts change to present works on a hand-held device? These are some of the questions that Mobile Exposure 2006 hopes to address. CONCEPT Mobile Exposure 2006 is looking for works that address mobile culture and/or are made WITH or to be EXHIBITED ON mobile/handheld devices. Our criteria are very broad; reflect on the mobile and locative through the medium or the concept. We encourage hybrid works as well (for example: imagery made with hand-helds and then post produced, mixed with sound in a classic filmmaking procedure). CALL FOR WORKS The Mobile Exposure 2006 handheld moving image program is an exploration of the potentials of mobile video and culture. Practitioners are invited to submit all genres of work, less than 15 minutes in length. Video Ringtones should be 2 minutes or less in length. WHAT WE WANT: We are looking for two types of works: Made for viewing on a mobile device and Made WITH a mobile device for viewing on the big screen (or little screen too if possible). We are looking for works made using cell phones, obsolete video cameras, wrist cams, toy (NON-vhs/dv/hi-8) video cameras, PDA's, and even small cameras that create mpg moving images. Please do not send any material using conventional video cameras unless it specifically relates to mobile culture. For films destined FOR the small screens of hand-held devices, any method of filmmaking is acceptable. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES and CHECKLIST see our Submission FAQ see the Submission Checklist You must fill out the on-line form found here: Submission Form (for all calls). FEES: US$5.00 payable by check, money or credit card/Paypal online. Please send check with submission or PAY ONLINE. Please send us your screeners on VHS, CD, mini-DV, or DVD, readable on PC. PAL or NTSC accepted for screeners. DVDs region 1 or 0 only. For exhibition we will require works on mini-DV (preferred) or unauthored DVD (mpeg, avi, or mov files only). Mini-DV PAL or NTSC OK. Unauthored data files must be in NTSC. We may also accept some video ringtone submissions via upload. DVDs region 1 or 0 only. Must be 15 minutes or less, including all titles...NO EXCEPTIONS. Ringtones 2 minutes or less. For works destined for the big screen please make sure that frame rates and screen size are "viewable" (720 x 480 format preferred for NTSC, analogous for PAL). A brief synopsis of the work(s) of up to 150 words and a short biography of the artists of up to 50 words maximum is also requested. Still .jpeg or .gif (PC formatted) should be included on a CD along with biographical materials and synopses. Please include a stamped, self-addressed postcard that we will send back to you as indication of reception of your film. ALL SUBMITTED ITEMS (papers, DVDs, tapes, cards, etc) MUST HAVE THE ARTIST NAME, NAME OF THE WORK, CONTACT, AND WHICH SECTION OF THE FESTIVAL YOU ARE SUBMMITING TO WRITTEN CLEARLY. Deadline: March 31, 2006 (arrival at the address below) Please mail all submissions to: Independent Exposure 2006 c/o Microcinema International 1528 Sul Ross Houston, TX 77006 USA +1-415-864-0660 FAX: +1-509-351-1530 Please address all inquiries to: Stephanie Martz, Associate Curator submissions AT microcinema.com SCREENINGS - VENUES - AWARDS: Mobile Exposure 2006 will be comprised of TWO SHOWS - presented in two screenings and formats: 1. RINGTONES: Online (films for the little screen). Film program will be available for download to mobile devices 2. On-screen: A traveling theatrical festival Screenings will be held worldwide We are pleased to announce our collaboration with the 49th San Francisco International Film Festival. Mobile Exposure 2006 will premiere at the Festival as part of a special program devoted to mobile moving images. Selected artists receive a US$50 honorarium/advance on exhibition fee royalties and will be eligible for our awards program. Addictive TV to judge Independent Exposure 2006, Curate "best-of", Panasonic Grand Prize We are also pleased to announce our collaboration with Panasonic Broadcast. For our 2006 Independent Exposure season, a grand prize will be awarded to a filmmaker selected by United Kingdom audiovisual artsts and VJs ADDICTIVE TV www.addictive.com. The grand prize will be a Panasonic AG-DVX100A 1/3" 3-CCD 24P/30P/60i DV Cinema Camera. Other prizes will be announced at a later date. Addictive TV will curate a "Best of Independent Exposure 2006" which will then screen in San Francisco in fall of 2006. Addictive TV will also select a grand prizewinner. Winners will be selected and notified by September 1, 2006. TERMS see Full Terms Upon acceptance, practitioners will be awarded a $50 honorarium. Artists will be contacted by Microcinema International regarding the exposure of works through festival exhibition, online screenings, promotional materials, and on print media (prints/catalogues) for gallery showings. All filmmakers agree, when submitting, that they have secured the necessary rights to screen the works in this touring festival, and that Microcinema is granted a non-exclusive 3-year license to screen work(s) at any one of Microcinema's Independent Exposure 2006 or Mobile Exposure 2006 screening tours and Microcinema's on-line festival website as well as on www.microcinema.com and www.independentexposure.com for promotional, archival and other non-commercial uses). All artists retain copyrights. About Patrick Lichty Lichty is an artist, scholar, and curator in New Media and technological arts, and is noted for his expertise in arts using mobile technologies. He is Editor-in-Chief of Intelligent Agent Magazine. About Addictive TV www.addictive.com "If there ever was a truly groundbreaking bunch of guys in the VJ world, it's certainly this lot" said DJ Magazine, voting Addictive TV number one in their first ever worldwide VJ poll in 2004. The London based group of DJs, VJs and producers have been championing the art of the VJ and pushing it into mainstream media for a decade now. Performing internationally, crisscrossing the art and club worlds, Addictive TV have played at venues from the Pompidou Centre in Paris and the roof of the National Theatre in London to Tokyo superclub Ageha and the UK's Glastonbury Festival. Recent audiovisual performances include the 2005 Roskilde festival in front 20,000 people. and Sven Vath's amazing Cocoon Club in Frankfurt, using 25 projectors. And as VJs, in the past the guys have mixed live visual sets for artists including Howie B, Andrew Weatherall, Goldie and Fatboy Slim. On the flipside, producing for television, Addictive TV were the first to put VJs on TV back in 1998 with their Transambient series for Channel 4 (UK), and in the last five years have produced four seasons of the ITV1 music series Mixmasters, commissioning over 300 artists worldwide including many of the best names in electronic music from Miss Kittin and DJ Spooky, to Plump DJs and Derrick Carter plus a whole host of international VJs. In 1999, they set up what is acknowledged as the worlds first VJfocused DVD label, releasing compilation DVD albums fusing music and visuals; Releases include Audiovisualize, cult classic in the genre Transambient and the Mixmasters series. This year, Addictive TV judged the VJ category at the 2005 Diesel UMusic Awards, the Radio 1/BBC archive Superstar VJs competition and DJ Magazine's TScan Awards. Also in 2005, the team broke new ground organising the sellout music and visuals hybrid festival Optronica at the National Film Theatre and bfi London IMAX cinema; the first festival dedicated to the audiovisual genre plus the first time the IMAX venue has been used for live performances in such a way. Currently Addictive TV are working on the Rapture Riders video mashup for EMI, remixing Blondie Vs The Doors, for release in November 2005. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire http://rhizome.org/hosting/ Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year. Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other plan, today! About BroadSpire BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans (prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June 2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. From: Jeremy Beaudry <jeremy AT boxwith.com> Date: Dec 18, 2005 6:03 PM Subject: CALL FOR ARTISTS - Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation "Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation in Art and Literature" OPENSOURCE Art & the Illinois Program for Research in the Humanities Champaign-Urbana, Illinois March 2-31 2006 matthart AT uiuc.edu OPENSOURCE Art has joined with the Illinois Program for Research in the Humanities (IPRH) to create "Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation in Art and Literature." Investigating the relation between realism, the ?real,? and the image; philosophical realism and the idea of artistic truth; and the resurgence of realism in art and literature, this series of exhibitions and talks will combine IPRH's acknowledged strengths in humanities scholarship with OPENSOURCE's burgeoning reputation as a site for innovative art and curatorial practice. Please download the full Call for Artists (pdf) for information about the two "Spectacles of the Real" exhibitions and our exciting program of talks at: http://opensource.boxwith.com Deadline for artist proposals: Feb 1, 2006 Exhibitions open: March 2, 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. From: katerie gladdys <kgladdys AT ufl.edu> Date: Dec 20, 2005 8:07 PM Subject: University of Florida Faculty Vacancy DIGITAL MEDIA ARTIST University of Florida School of Art and Art History Faculty Vacancy - Assistant Professor DIGITAL MEDIA ARTIST The School of Art and Art History invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Digital Media. The starting date is August 15, 2006. For more details on this search see: www.arts.ufl.edu/art/resources/facultyvacancies.asp Responsibilities: Teach undergraduate and graduate students and participate in program development within both the School?s and the College?s interdisciplinary Digital Media Program; conduct a program of research appropriate to the discipline; and contribute appropriately in the area of service to the university, the community and the profession. Qualifications: Excellent artist and committed teacher with the ability to work in an interdisciplinary manner within the School of Art and Art History/College of Fine Arts and have the ability to foster research and pedagogical collaborations with academic departments throughout the university. Applicants must be conversant with technical, aesthetic, and contemporary critical issues in digital media and the arts. Expertise in 3-D animation and programming strongly desired with additional experience in interactive, motion, or time-based digital technlogies. A strong theoretical background is preferred. MFA or equivalent professional experience; teaching experience beyond graduate assistantship desired. Rank and Salary: Assistant Professor; nine-month salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. The University of Florida is a comprehensive, graduate research institution with 48,000 students and membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities. Gainesville, which is consistently ranked as one of the nation?s most livable cities, is located midway between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Together, the university and the community comprise an educational, medical and cultural center for North Central Florida, with outstanding resources such as the University of Florida Performing Arts (Phillips Center for the Performing Arts, Baughman Center and the University Auditorium) the Harn Museum of Art, the Florida Museum of Natural History, and the Hippodrome State Theater. The School of Art and Art History, organized within the College of Fine Arts, plays an important role in the academic life of the university and in the community. The School has 35 full-time faculty with approximately 600 art majors. Degree programs include the BA, BFA, MA, MFA, and PhD. Areas of study include General Art Studies, Art History, Art Education, Museum Studies, Studio Art (majors in Ceramics, Creative Photography, Drawing, Digital Media, Graphic Design, Painting, Printmaking, and Sculpture). Degree programs are accredited by NASAD and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The School of Art and Art History homepage is located at http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art. Application Deadline: For full consideration, applications should be submitted by January 13, 2006 when the committee will begin reviewing applications. Applications will continue to be accepted and reviewed until the position is filled. Application Procedures: Applicants must submit letter of application, CV, and teaching philosophy. Include 20 examples of student projects and 20 examples from your portfolio in a digital format on CD or DVD. Also, include addresses, email and phone numbers of three references who have been asked to send letters of recommendation, along with a SASE (for return of the material) to: Digital Media Artist Search School of Art and Art History P. O. Box 115801 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-5801 An Equal Opportunity Institution + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome ArtBase Exhibitions http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/ Visit "Net Art's Cyborg[feminist]s, Punks, and Manifestos", an exhibition on the politics of internet appearances, guest-curated by Marina Grzinic from the Rhizome ArtBase. http://www.rhizome.org/art/exhibition/cyborg/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. From: messere AT oswego.edu <messere AT oswego.edu> Date: Dec 21, 2005 9:12 AM Subject: New Media Position at SUNY OSWEGO State University of New York at Oswego Communication Studies New Media The Communication Studies Department and the Center for Communication and Information Technology (CCIT) seek to fill a tenure track position at the assistant professor level in the area of New Media. Insofar as computational media materially challenge traditional disciplinarity, the successful candidate?s terminal degree might me in any number of fields, from multimedia communication or graphic design, to media ecology or humanities computing. Previous teaching experience and a record of successful grant administration are desirable. The ideal candidate should be able to teach a combination of undergraduate and graduate courses, which will not only develop both beginning and advanced practical skills, but will also examine the theoretical dimensions of New Media. In addition, the candidate should be able to situate technical developments in the New Media within broader cultural and societal domains, and be prepared to education students for global and multicultural comm! unities. CCIT is an interdisciplinary laboratory founded to teach new media and communications technology. The Center is co-sponsored by Communication Studies, the Graphic Arts program and the Information Science program, the Human Computer Interaction program and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. We seek a dynamic individual with the capacity to seek funding and research opportunities and develop strategies that would ensure that CCIT laboratories maintain cutting edge technology. The candidate would play a central role in developing a graduate program in new media. In addition, the specialist in New Media would interact with partners such as the new Cinema Studies Program, as well as new initiatives in the Theatre and Music Departments The Communication Studies Department offers programs in Communication, Broadcasting and Mass Communication, Journalism and Public Relations and is housed in Lanigan Hall, which has recently received a million dollar renovation with state-of-the-art television and graphics facilities. Applications should include a cover letter, vita, transcripts and three letters of recommendation and should be sent to: New Media Search Committee Communication Studies Department Lanigan Hall SUNY Oswego Oswego, New York 13126 Review of applications will begin January 23, 2006 and will continue until the position is filled. SUNY Oswego is an Affirmative Action Employer + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via panel-awarded commissions. For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected to create original works of net art. http://rhizome.org/commissions/ The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has been provided by members of the Rhizome community. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. From: Marisa Olson <marisa AT rhizome.org> Date: Dec 22, 2005 8:45 AM Subject: Fwd: OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art, video, animation, shorts) + + + From: anne AT freewaves.org OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art, video, animation, shorts) *PLEASE POST/FORWARD* Too Much Freedom? LA Freewaves 10th Celebration of Experimental Media Arts Postmark Deadline: February 15, 2006. The showcase will present experimental media art from around the world at art venues in Los Angeles in November 2006 and through the Freewaves web site. Media art works include experimental video and film (narrative, documentary, art, animation, etc.), DVDs, websites, simple installations, and video billboards. Works from the festival will also appear on public television, cable stations and video-streamed on the Internet. Competitive selection process will be conducted by a group of international and local curators with diverse specialties and backgrounds. Notification of acceptance is in July 2006. Artist payments will be $200 for selected works. How to Enter: * Work must be completed since January 1, 2003. * Entries must be postmarked to Freewaves by February 15, 2006. * Include completed entry form * Label entries with title, artist?s name, length, date of work and format. * Include a resume or bio plus a one paragraph description for each work submitted. * For websites, indicate URL address on application form. * For installation proposals, include additional description and diagrams/images. * If you are in US, include self-addressed stamped envelope for return of work. * There is no entry fee to submit work for consideration, however, we highly encourage those who can afford it to become LA Freewaves members with a $25 donation. With membership, you support our programs so that we can continue to promote and exhibit innovative new media art during this difficult time. Send To: LA Freewaves 2151 Lake Shore Ave Los Angeles CA USA 90039 Questions: write anne AT freewaves.org LA Freewaves is a nonprofit organization which survives on grants and donations. ------------------------------------- Open Call Entry Form Too Much Freedom? LA Freewaves 10th Celebration of Experimental Media Arts Please type or print clearly. Artist Name:______________________________________________ Street Address:___________________________________________ City, State and Zip Code:____________________________________ Country:_________________________________________________ Email Address:____________________________________________ Phone Number:___________________________________________ --------------------------------------- Title of Entry 1:____________________________________________ Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________ Format/URL:______________________________________________ Running Time: ________ minutes --------------------------------------- Title of Entry 2:____________________________________________ Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________ Format/URL:______________________________________________ Running Time: ________ minutes --------------------------------------- Title of Entry 3:____________________________________________ Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________ Format/URL:______________________________________________ Running Time: ________ minutes --------------------------------------- For format, indicate: -DVD -Mini DV -VHS -Website (indicate URL) -Silent Video Billboard -Other (explain) ___Yes! Sign me up for membership. Here?s my $25 donation. I want LA Freewaves to continue to promote and exhibit innovative new media art. ___ I?m not entering the festival, but sign me up for membership. LA Freewaves rocks!! (Indicate name, physical address and email above and send form with your $25 check.) Make membership check or money order payable to LA Freewaves. Enclose resume/bio, work description text and SASE. For questions and entries, contact Anne Bray at anne AT freewaves.org or: LA Freewaves 2151 Lake Shore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039 USA (323) 664-1510 a media arts magnet + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. From: Vicente Matallana <ube AT laagencia.org> Date: Dec 22, 2005 11:36 AM Subject: Dead line remainder - ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS -worth 6.000. Euros We are contacting you just to remind you that the registration deadline of the ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS Sponsored by BEEP, in collaboration with ARCO WORTH 6.000. Euros http://www.arco.beep.es/ is next 16th of January. There are two ACQUISITION PRIZES: 1) Off-ARCO Prize: worth 6.000 euros Artworks presented by individual artists or collectives. Any artist using in a significant way new technologies can be presented. Before ARCO'06, these eligible artworks must also be previously submitted for individual artist or collectives, through registration on the awards' website www.arco.beep.es <http://www.arco.beep.es/> On this website you can find the complete awards¹ rules and the registration form. 2) AT ARCO Prize: worth 8.000 euros To be eligible, an artwork must be shown and presented at the 25th edition of ARCO, the International Contemporary Art Fair, in Madrid (9-13 February 2006), and must have a significant component involving new technology or electronic media. You can contact for further information to premiobeep AT laagencia.org Wish you luck. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. From: Marisa Olson <marisa AT rhizome.org> Date: Dec 22, 2005 10:41 PM Subject: Southern Exposure announces call for proposals Hi. This is from one of my very favorite nonprofit art galleries/org's in San Francisco. Considering that SF's art 'scene' generally revolves around the nonprofits, that's saying a lot... ~Marisa + + + CALL FOR PROPOSALS: SoEx OFFSITE An opportunity for emerging artists to develop and create new public works in San Francisco that investigate diverse strategies for exploring and mapping public space. SOUTHERN EXPOSURE OFFSITE: Southern Exposure?s 2006-2007 Exhibition and Artists in Education programs will move beyond the gallery walls in order to present new forms of work in public space. Southern Exposure will temporarily relocate in the summer of 2006 so that the building that we have always called home at Project Artaud can undergo a seismic retrofit and upgrade. Southern Exposure is utilizing this unique opportunity to extend our programs into the public realm. Southern Exposure, founded in 1974, has a long history of presenting community-based projects. Through this new program, Southern Exposure has a goal of encouraging artists to work experimentally in public space, enabling artists to develop new works that could not otherwise be realized, and generating a critical dialog about emerging creative practices. ABOUT THE PROJECT: Southern Exposure will commission a series of public art projects that investigate diverse strategies for exploring and mapping public space. Artists selected through this open call will be commissioned to produce new work. This project is informed by the legacy of the Situationists, an international artistic and political movement that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. The Situationists sought to radically redefine the role of art in society with a particular interest in everyday experiences in public space. They developed key concepts such as the dérive ? the practice of drifting through urban space - and psychogeography ? the study of the effects of the geographic environment on the emotions and behavior of individuals. In addition, a goal of these projects is to reconsider the Situationists? strategies in light of new technologies such as Global Positioning devices and wireless communication, which have fundamentally transformed our ability to navigate public space. This series will feature a range of projects that utilize strategies such as simple acts of walking and note taking, to projects that employ high-tech and technological apparatuses as a means to fuse virtual and real experiences or to disseminate geographical and historical information, to performances, actions, or events. These projects may involve the audience?s participation, enabling the public to engage in acts of urban mapping and reflect on their own experiences in public space. Southern Exposure seeks proposals for artwork in various media including 1) artwork with a physical presence such as: installation, sculpture, or public intervention; 2) ephemeral and participatory artwork such as: performance, tour, walk, discussion, or lecture; 3) technology-based work such as new media or sound art; or 4) projects that combine the above categories. Projects will be presented between September 2006 and Spring 2007. The duration of the projects can range from a single performance to repeating events or a long-term installation. Selected artists will receive an honorarium and production budget ranging from $500 - $5,000 depending on the scope of the project. Southern Exposure will work with artists to provide support, promote their projects, and will create a publication that documents the program series after the projects have been presented. Southern Exposure will also provide a home base for artists to work, with space for information about the projects to be accessible to the public. APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCESS: The SoEx OFFSITE application is available for download as a PDF file. The proposals will be reviewed by several members of Southern Exposure?s Curatorial Committee. We are seeking proposals from artists who demonstrate a potential for creative growth working in the public realm, or artists who would like to extend their practice into the public realm but have yet to work this way. Please mail or deliver your proposal package to Southern Exposure. Southern Exposure does not accept electronic submissions. SoEx OFFSITE Southern Exposure 401 Alabama Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Application Deadline: Materials must be received at Southern Exposure?s office by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2006 (this is not a postmark date). Hand deliveries will be accepted. Notification Deadline: Artists will be notified by later no later than March 31, 2006. Please do not call before this date. INQUIRIES: You can find all of this information and more at www.soex.org in the SoEx OFFSITE section. If you have questions regarding the application process, please contact us by email: programs AT soex.org. Subject heading of the email should read: ?SoEx OFFSITE.? About Southern Exposure Southern Exposure is a 31 year old, non-profit, artist-run organization dedicated to presenting diverse, innovative, contemporary art, arts education, and related programs and events in an accessible environment. Southern Exposure reaches out to diverse audiences and serves as a forum and resource center to provide extraordinary support to the Bay Area's arts and educational communities. Activities range from exhibitions of local, regional, and international visual artists? work, education programs, and lectures, panel discussions, and performances. Southern Exposure is dedicated to giving artists?whether they are exhibiting, curating, teaching, or learning?an opportunity to realize ideas for projects that may not otherwise find support. For more information go to www.soex.org or call 415-863-2141. This program is made possible through the generous support of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. .... S O U T H E R N E X P O S U R E Dynamic, cutting edge art, education, and community programs since 1974. 401 Alabama Street AT 17th Street San Francisco, CA 94110 t: 415.863.2141 f: 415.863.1841 e: soex AT soex.org w: www.soex.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. From: Judith Fegerl <email AT jdth.net> Date: Dec 16, 2005 4:24 AM Subject: re|sonance|network|futures|005 catalog out now! sonance.artistic.network Download the complete catalog http://re.sonance.net/catalog/005/resonance005_catalog_LoRes.pdf "The future of |sonance|network|" .. is a Workshop in which people meet, who are linked to one another by the common use of the extended working environment of |sonance|network|, in order to exchange their work and ideas. .. is a Workshop, in which |sonance|network| is made lucent and possibilities of active participation are pointed out. .. is a Workshop, in which the future of |sonance|network| is brought up for discussion. Follow-ups * An Internet publication of the discourse meeting "The future OF |sonance|network|" will be publisehd on the resonance005 homepage. resonance005.sonance.net * Cyclic rounds of talks will be created. Note: from the 11th to the 13th of December 2005 netznetz is organizing the symposium/sprintosium 2005, which will relate to the topic of MANA. www.netznetz.net The |sonance|network|event-team looks forward to an interesting end-of-the-year event, to countless project concepts and to an exciting inquiry on the Internet. http://www.sonance.net http://resonance005.sonance.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 10. From: basak senova <basak AT nomad-tv.net> Date: Dec 18, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: ISTANBUL_04: Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance +++++++++++++++++++++++ Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance Istanbul Screening Programme 4 +++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.nomad-tv.net/serial_cases +++++++++++++++++++++++ 20.12.2005 AT 19:00 Istanbul Bilgi University Dolapdere Campus ? Theater +++++++++++++++++++++++ Eyal Danon (Holon, Israel) Trespassing Ruti Sela & Ma'ayan Amir (Alei Zahav, 5:30 min, 2005, Beyond Guilt#2, 18 min, 2004) | Ruti Sela & Clil Nadav (loopolice, 6:55 min, 2003) | Avi Mugrabi (Details 3&4, 9 min, 2004) | Annan Tzukerman (Anxious Escapism, 2005) | Nira Pereg (Souvenir, 5 min, 2005) | Artists without Walls (April 1st), 19:30 min, 2004). Orfeas Skutelis and Branka Curcic (Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro) Mapping Rightwing Extremism (Fighting for what's left) Brosko Prostran (Touching, 4:30 min, 2004) | Filip Markovinovi? (The Army and Me, 24 min, 2005) | Mirjana Batinic (Identity: Balkans, 2:30 min) | Bob Miloshevic (Algorythm, 6 min, 2004) | Dragan Predojevic (Die Faksche Idee, 54 sec) | Malden Marinkov (Déjà Vu, 9:40 min) | Miroslav Jovic (Triumph of E-will, 2:20min, 2005). +++++++++++++++++++++++ Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance is a joint project of ten curators from eight countries. The first stage of Serial Cases will be presented throughout November 2005 March 2006 as an exchange Video Screening Program in eight different cities. Parallel cases covered by the works along with cultural inputs from these regions are the basis for this screening programme series. +++++++++++++++++++++++ The curators of the project are Michal Kolecek (Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic), Antonia Majaca (Zagreb, Croatia), Basak Senova (Istanbul, Turkey), Matei Bejenaru (Iasi, Romania), Margarethe Makovec and Anton Lederer (Graz, Austria), Galia Dimitrova (Sofia, Bulgaria), Eyal Danon (Holon, Israel), Orfeas Skutelis and Branka Curcic (Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro). Digital post production of the project was coordinated by Eyal Danon of Israeli Center for Digital Art, Holon. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Istanbul screening programme is hosted by NOMAD at Istanbul Bilgi University Dolapdere Campus ? Theater --------------------------------------------------------------- NOMAD http://www.nomad-tv.net --------------------------------------------------------------- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11. From: Archive Registrar <registrar AT deepyoung.org> Date: Dec 20, 2005 5:05 AM Subject: _ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit http://deepyoung.org/current/blank/ _ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit Deep/Young Anodyne Laboratories is pleased to announce its newest ethereal exhibit, "_ This Concept," currently housed & viewable at Deep/Young Ethereal Archive via the aforementioned URL. "_ This Concept" collates a series of email instructions posted by Curt Cloninger to the Rhizome RAW mailing list between 6/5/2005 and 8/11/2005. Rather than have these pre-objects disappear prematurely into the ether, we have chosen to re-circulate them at varying semi-stable frequencies in order to ward off any untoward residual calcification that may have inadvertently accumulated in their absence. As You Wish, Archive Registrar Deep/Young Ethereal Archive http://www.deepyoung.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12. From: sachiko hayashi <look AT e-garde.com> Date: Dec 20, 2005 5:56 AM Subject: Hz #7 Hz: http://www.hz-journal.org Hz #7 presents: [articles] Exploding, Plastic and Inevitable: the Rise of Video Art by Jeremy Welsh Jeremy Welsh, a video artist and professor at the Bergen National Academy of the Arts, Department of Fine Art, Norway, presents a condense history of the medium which came to be known as "Video Art." Directory.Linking 2:/The Immersive State of Reality[Game]Play. by MEZ Experimental cyber poet MEZ observes today's game play and asks us " Should artists learn from ARGs [Alternative Reality Games'] ability to push genre-dimensionalities beyond the emptiness of forced sterile institutionalised [sanctioned] interactivity?" The Old and the New and the New Old: A Conceptual Approach Towards Performing The Changing Body by Franziska Schroeder Franziska Schroeder examines two modes of performance in relation to the body and technology and goes on to search for the third - "the new old." Synchronised Swamp: Uncanny Expressive Mathematics by Pierre Proske Pierre Proske explains his "Synchronised Swamp," a computer generated simulation of a mathematical model of a natural phenomenon. Listening to the Earch by Andrea Polli "Heat and the Heartbeat of the City" and "N." are two projects by Andrea Polli, a digital media artist who works in collaboration with meteorological scientists for better understanding of our climate through data sonification. ORAMA Project by David Boardman David Boardman's ORAMA "wants to offer a new social tool able to support the need for new collaborative imaginaries and narrations necessary for a redefinition of the cities, the urban spaces and their identities. " [Net Art] Mapa by Influenza Triangles by Compound Pilot Stand by Your Guns by Jillian McDonald Mire Cruft by Robert Sphar Flying Puppet by Nicolas Clauss Hz is published by Fylkingen, Stockholm. Established in 1933 Fylkingen has been promoting unestablished art forms throughout its long history. For more information on our activities, please visit http://www.fylkingen.se Sachiko Hayashi/Hz + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13. From: T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com>, Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org>, marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org>, Jason Van Anden <robotissues AT gmail.com>, patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com>, Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>, Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis AT gmail.com>, Jack Stenner <jack AT jigglingwhisker.com>, Eric Dymond <dymond AT idirect.ca>, Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org>, manik <manik AT ptt.yu>, miklos AT sympatico.ca <miklos AT sympatico.ca>, Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, mark cooley <flawedart AT yahoo.com>, Pall Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca>, Gregory Little <glittle AT bgnet.bgsu.edu>, napier <napier AT potatoland.org>, Zev Robinson <zr AT zrdesign.co.uk>, Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net>, <joy.garnett AT gmail.com>, Bosah Pneumatic <bosahgnos AT yahoo.co.uk> Date: Dec 16 - 21, 2005 Subject: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA +T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com> posted:+ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html Murphy posted on Thingist this quote: "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual disciplines, especially design." To which he added this commentary: "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What the two share is Design." ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider. + Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied:+ i agree. but while maybe half (probably less than) is "visual culture", there's another half that's theoretical culture. art that is satisfying in both is rare, but art that satisfies in experience culture (interactivity, the visual or theoretical being secondary to the experience created) or anything other than visual or theoretical (traditional ways of seeing "art") is even more rare. am in school, watching younger people, people who've never had much previous experience in programming, electronics or interactivity. who actually have a lot stronger intuitive sense of it that many of the teachers of a previous generation. gallery owners, curators, funders, etc. tend to even be a few generations behind that. it's certainly not always the case, but the vast majorityy. it will just be a waiting game, when the enlightened of today take over the decision making positions. oh well. masterpieces don't become masterpieces until we're dead. so there's no hurry. just make a bunch now while we still can, so we leave them with something. the economics are a little ahead of the culture part in this respect. the economics is just a game but one that's slightly more savvy. judsoN +marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org> replied:+ 'most art says nothing to most people'... h.bunting :-) I said it also, but he put on a billboard... marc +T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com> posted:+ On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues AT gmail.com> wrote: > What would Jackson do? > > There are so many artists making so many different things that I have > to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all. > > Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art > (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it > is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say > otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at > any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these > super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual > Culture instead of Visual Art. I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at Pixar as opposed to PS1. I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art). Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or critical awareness that one would presume to find in art. Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're just damn good entertainers. > > If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today - > would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of > making expressive paintings? > > Jason Van Anden > www.smileproject.com +patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com> replied:+ Here's the problem with this show- BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o (or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the art!) Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy home for that time. When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what? PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake sale management... Two points here. One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?". Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are close, though. Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30. Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium Falcon, out the door... I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just another small notch down, IMO. I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...) I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work that has no discursive component lodges in these museums. But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step. Patrick Lichty Editor-In-Chief Intelligent Agent Magazine http://www.intelligentagent.com 1556 Clough Street, #28 Bowling Green, OH 43402 225 288 5813 voyd AT voyd.com +Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> replied:+ [....] In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component? [] .... Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work. +Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis AT gmail.com> replied:+ On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > > In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component? In what way does it? i'm not gonna argue either way, but it seems the burden of proof, whether PIXAR or <your favorite conceptual artist here>, is to make a case for its discursiveness. if one thinks there should be a burden at all, anyway. of course, anything can be discursive. my refrigerator has an interesting history, i'm sure. > > Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work. there's discursive for you. my problem with the PIXAR thing is that it's already everywhere, it doesn't need explanation - as the "look at the work" statement makes clear. i'm sure lots of nice critical essays can be and have been written about the role of pixar and popular animation in larger global culture. and i'm also sure that there are plenty of interesting connections with contemporary and historical art that can be made. but is the exhibition doing this at all? it seems an obvious blockbuster, bring-in-the-movie-audience move. in that way, i'm with Patrick and twhid... why should we want to see a cultural institution (of a specific mission) use its resources to support something that arguably doesn't need its support in the least. maybe i'll learn something extremely fascinating about pixar, but if it's about their work... well, i can get it from just about any bog box store/video rental place/free on network TV. unless they've done some really groundbreaking or critical work that would never make it in their usual market, i don't know why i'd care. best, ryan +Jack Stenner <jack AT jigglingwhisker.com> replied:+ I empathize, similar experience here. I forwarded the article to our department email list this morning, since earlier in the week the show was triumphantly announced. The majority of undergraduate and graduate students here (Texas A&M Visualization Lab) clamor for internships and eventual jobs at ILM, Pixar, Blue Sky, etc. It's a struggle to communicate the breadth of creative opportunity available outside the scope of entertainment. There's a constant battle between those who want anything creatively produced to be afforded the title of art, and those who have something more specific in mind. You watch as a mass of creative potential blindly follows the pied piper into the wilderness. Hopefully a few take a different course. While I agree the MOMA has focused on design in the past, I think they have a responsibility to be clear about the distinction......or is that solely the critics job? (just my opinion) Jack +patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com> replied:+ I only sent this to rob. However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's still big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I might say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly) because it challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief. This is the difference (challenge vs. lull) which is the difference. My original answer is as follows. > In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component? Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual culture element, and it says something about culture through the way they use technology and the range of stories they use. [....] >Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work. In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay. Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of virtuosity in form. Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim? Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met? Does Pixar belong in the MoMA? We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks, Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses. If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting argument. Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big art money. If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like "All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than The Incredibles. Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today. +Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> replied:+ If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up. But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries. Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take a look at http://www.renderman.org/ . As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art. And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more. - Rob. +Eric Dymond <dymond AT idirect.ca> replied:+ I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts students) for the past semester. It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning in art while still maintaining a level of currency. I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th century academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned". What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new students, a holy grail. It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more important than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur grant cuts no ice with them. It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change? The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students is very hard to overcome. What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them. I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is overwhelming arts instructors at every major college and University. Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I am right. [....] I should add, that in a consumaer driven education system, there is push from many directions to "connect with the student". This comes at great cost. One of our profs, showed the students Sid Meier's video to make a connection.They were very impressed. This validation from the mainstream media creates division. In the eyes of most new art students, validation from Pixar, ILM, EAE sports, and Blizzard, overwhelms validation from their parents brick and mortar institutions such as MOMA SFMOMA etc..And generations divide the art world. If the majority choose the former, then undergound may become, buried under the ground. Soon forgotten. Watch your relavence, It can kill you. [....] and we should be surprised that a generation (now entering Art School) exposed to digital art in games, movies and the web from the time they were 5 years old has a different understanding for the meaning of the word "Art"? and we should be surprised that they trust Pixar, and distrust the older generations institutions and philosophies? And why is Pixar less trustworthy than older institutions (Universities, Museums, Galleries) which also promote political, economic and cultural agendas that are equally suspect? Well of course, what a surprise! They don't like the way things work. +Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied:+ i think you're onto something important. we may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little like granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or lawrence welk. rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift, commercially motivated, etc too. but even we would never argue it isn't art. why would pixar be any different? good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but remember, the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door. People who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority. This show'll probably end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring in nearly the traffic but we find more Artistic. and i'm sure their funding hinges on traffic not just ticket price. in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5 parts/instruments. By (pre-50's) jazz and classical standards, calling this "music" is a joke. but what changed had nothing to do with that criteria and much more to do with hair cuts. Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong element(s). - judsoN +manik <manik AT ptt.yu> replied:+ Geert Dekers send this link few days ago: http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html We were inspired to wrote something about that,but "link" is so funny and grotesque,we let it past with other dilettante invention(link,not Geert's choice)...We thought some student of art history will be hit by unusual quantity of nonsense,favor of American artist(especially in XXI century art-mostly unknown),but there's no Jeff Koons,there's no New British sculpture R.Deacon,A.Kapoor...Russian Actionist-Kulik,Brener,one of funniest performer on the world(with Paul McCartney)Marina Abramovich,Russian avant-garde's without Rodchenko(he made first monochrome 1912,see Pontus Hulten book about XX century art),Byzantine art is completely without Serbian fresco painting,it's focused on Greek and Russian...etc.List is very long and sad,but that's only parts we examine (just have no time for handicraft product like that).But,always some but make us to come out repeating same story about paravane art,about,now not so hidden, games around&in 'world of art"...garrulousness,boring,minimalist repeating of few decisive fact in contemporary art streaming. If we study problem of exhibition policy in one of greatest museum like MoMA as a represent(one of) most powerful art institution in the world we study politics in USA in generally,and we shall see farther politics of"Main Subject"(term by J,Habermas)of The World,yes cowboy,I see your modest smile-USA again!Our experience with museums is extreme bad;out of current fight for power(which is immanent political) and everything which goes with that:money for survive before all(in this processes art is only mediator,something from second plan,important but not decisive)we were witness of events,similar to happening in MoMA(everything's reflection of "Main Subject"even in distortion,invalid, without glamour and poor(small shit is still shit?). Not to strong(structurally) for open fight against art(it's hard to find substitute) ,for open take over field which still laying under 'mystic'protect of beauty and sense(art),museums and their stuff(bureaucracy) used to make kind of inside subversion against works which doesn't fit in main political (global) projection well enough,but make something what "we"and "they"still called aesthetic("cultural product"term by R.Myers).Institutional acknowledgment is first step toward wide public.Wide public's ruling class(race) and they,in last instance fix order in art.To be warm accepted from this class and besides be good artist(like Mathew Barney)is wining combination.That's how actualize became Myth,almost indestructible culture creation,and far more how Myth became obstacle and how this mythologized discourse became discourse of ruling class before skip over and became empty speech which keep world in unchangeable state. Last decade is mark by "neo-nato"art,taking space(of art)by force (USA),everything wrapping in futile mythologeme about liberalism,globalism and open borders which is shameless lie ever.Democracy is very slow system incapable to adapt one's behavior to fast changes.Most of art,theory and discourse glow like dead star.Today's effort to understand complex problem of art and position of this "cultural product"depend of timely reaction and merciless point to possible solution out of clumsy institution. MANIK +miklos AT sympatico.ca <miklos AT sympatico.ca> commented:+ To stir a hornest's nest most of the email on raw talks about code but isn't content the issue? It seems intellectual activity has been the 'darling' of the arts these last thirty years; and yes it's impressive what thought, systems, machines can do, but the fault and weakness of the intellect is it's limitation based on knowledge, which is always and by definition selective according to one's agenda. This last part, hidden motivators, is normally with good reason left unexamined. I've always thought the popularity of much conceptual and digital artwork due not so much to content but rather to it's mimmicry of other more powerful and effective social systems (surveillance, database, etc.); by appropriating the form it seems to appropriate their effectiveness and so reassures the art world that we're on track, not being left out of contemporary scientific developments. -- Miklos Legrady 310 Bathurst st. Toronto ON. M5T 2S3 416-203-1846 647-292-1846 http://www.mikidot.com +Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> replied:+ Hi Miklos, What I want to read is a binary poem as though the medium were transformed to imagination's space, and the poem, whether of words or more recently digital glyphs, became proof, of sorts, that it was a truly human extension of the mind and our quandry, though artifice. The idea was to make it fully human, not literally, but figuratively, fully human as a figure of speech. So that an artificial intelligence is a figure of speech or code, or writing, and its life, as art, is the life of art, which is figurative yet as lively as can be. Similarly, the life in artificial life, as art, is not artificial life, or even life, but the life of art, which is not about algorithms and whatnot but how lively it is not so much as entertainment but as profoundly human creation, realization, recognition, acknowledgement, third eye of apprehension... To take a medium and turn it into a part of the brain and senses, a part of how we think and feel, like print is, or like cinema is, by now, is at least to have a feeling for its full capacity like we do with our bodies when we are young and our (stranger and stranger) minds, as we age. The full capacity of this media/um is hardly yet plumbed, but I would like to read/experience such a poem plumb, pick it off the net-tree. Knowledge is involved in this, and so is code, but it isn't the goal. Code can be fetishized and so can knowledge, as though these were the goals. But really it's giving this media/um the life of art that we're out to achieve as artists, isn't it? And that's a matter of putting it all together. The intellectual, the emotional, the technical, the creative... ja http://vispo.com ps: Have really been enjoying the "NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA" thread. In a sense, this is part of that thread, it seems. And sorry for the poemy post. Couldn't help it. +patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com> replied:+ I have to leave for Break soon, but I'm off on this one. >We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift, commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it isn't art. why would pixar be >any different? Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing what they already believe and to kill their individuality. There are pieces that are just as technically masterful which are great art video. Chris Cunningham, Michel Gondry, Chris Landreth (http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/ryan-the-special-edition.shtml) vs. Pixar/Dreamworks/Square/ENIX. Murakami vs. Sailor Moon. >good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but remember, >the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door. Not an excuse for an institution like the MoMA, IMO. They can do better than this. There are far more worthy candidates that could get bucks. >People who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority. Is that the best argument, given the venue/context? >This show'll probably end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring in >nearly the traffic but we find more Artistic. That's a really seductive argument, and IMO, an excuse for doing more unchallenging 'popular' shows to finance the 'unpopular' ones. I think that it's necessary to try to do the risky route - the challenging 'popular' show. I had to wait 4 weeks to get the "Little Boy" catalogue from the Japan Society because of the backlog. >in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5 >parts/instruments. But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so. That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it was beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique. It fell short and had a completely predictable storyline. Honestly, Tron was better, and still is. I would probably ague to elevate that movie to an art status, because of the profound effect that was born from the exceptional vision it had. >Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but >probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong element(s). If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the MoMA. +Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied:+ On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:53 AM, patrick lichty wrote: >> We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift, commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it isn't art. why would pixar be >any different? > Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing what they already believe and to kill their individuality. haha did you think elvis or the beatles would have been hits without all those screaming teenage girls thinking they were cute and cuddly? pixar does upset the apple cart of feature animation. the simpsons is now mainstream, but it's still anti-disney. there is nothing too innovative in Toy Story (much less TS2 and both got Prix Ars). But Monsters Inc really is innovative (like sesame street was long ago). I think Shrek was pixar too? anyway, nickelodeon started the ball rolling, but then you might as well argue if bracht or picasso deserve kudos for "cubism". >> in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5 parts/instruments. > But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so. That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it was beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique. not that more chords IS better music, but that there was a time when A. the technical complexity was paramount, the cultural effects went un-noticed until long after it had a profound effect B. no one thought R&R was impressive given the then current criteria. it's always too easy to project our current ideas , in retrospect, onto what was at one time new and judgment unsettled. the ramones are anti-beatles. joey's perspective is not paul's (back when he wore a leather jacket too. but our generation (loosely defined fourth wave of net artists?) has to acknowledge the difference in attitudes. or be left behind in a nostalgic dust cloud. it's easier to see now it was a change of fashions, know where to look. we are using old criteria and not looking at what will probably seem inescapably obvious ten years from now. folks will have a hard time NOT seeing it, like now we think anti-establishment means anti-corporate or anti-fashion. >> Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong element(s). > If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the MoMA. not at all. if the kids are psyched about it, perhaps we're missing something. (even if it's not exactly what those same kids see) the MoMA may have picked up on it, but more likely it's just a sellout. who cares either way. in fact, it would sound as if many people here are being let down by their faith in looking to the MoMA for integrity and leadership. too bad. we are all hit and miss. and the older the institution, the more likely it is to miss. but everyone hits once in a while. +napier <napier AT potatoland.org> replied:+ At 07:53 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote: > >We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little >like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or >lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift, >commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it >isn't art. why would pixar be >any different? > >Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple >cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the >opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing >what they already believe and to kill their individuality. I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of an all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into reinforcing what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same story was painted thousands of times, less successfully. Although I suppose you could say the Sistine Chapel was a secretive homage to homosexuality. After all God is super buff, and Adam looks like he could use a pick-me-up. And that finger touch gesture could raise an eyebrow or two. Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work and art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art because it has endured beyond it's original context. mark +patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com> replied:+ Napier Wrote: I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of an all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into reinforcing what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same story was painted thousands of times, less successfully. ... Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work and art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art because it has endured beyond it's original context. Mark, Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. Both were commercial. However, the nature of the culture of the time and the contextual functions of the given art in the given institution is quite different (or so I think; I'm always open to discussion). Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If that's where you're going, then I might agree with you. +Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> replied:+ On 17 Dec 2005, at 12:53, patrick lichty wrote: > Honestly, Tron was better, and still is. This is a very interesting argument and one that I do agree with. It's not just nostalgia. I have just bought the deluxe Tron DVD and the thing that strikes me about it is the technical incompetences and intellectual failures of the project *that make it an aesthetic and critical (discursive) success*. If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents very successfully as a finished work. Tron is problematic and carries a high risk of failure yet is an aesthetic and contentual (to make up a word) success. Is this Bourriaud's realisation of new technical content in an old medium? Well, no. Both backlit animation and computer graphics were rocket science at the time. And Tron was also much harder work than a Pixar movie. The backlit animation was hand-painted and hand-composited onto film stock specially manufactured by Kodak just for that film. The computer animation was rendered a frame at a time by animators keying hundreds of numbers into a teletype connected to a server over a phone line. By four different companies with incompatible software (some were CSG based, some mesh-based, and so on). I like "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc", and I think it is wrong to discount the creativity of the individuals that worked on those projects in favor of grant-funded discourse illustrators. My pitch to students seduced by the surfaces of what Pixar does would be this: Yeah it looks good. Now imagine making *art* with those tools. http://www.renderman.org/ - Rob. + patrick lichty <voyd AT voyd.com> posted:+ My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night, and I thought more about this converstation. The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be people who create someone else's vision. This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an artist is about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about realizing someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of realization. One requires a lot more thought than the other. In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to know to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly. Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the kids that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for any number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term, in tems of the students. Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they can have creative freedom. I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no sense to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical school? Therefore: The dream of Pixar: 1: Short-term 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media that judges its merit on market success) 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist, 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media production paradigm. 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment. 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is driven by the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still have to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also extremely hard to pass. It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to think, when they might actually find it easier to do so. Pick your poison. I can come up with a few more, I'm sure. +mark cooley <flawedart AT yahoo.com> replied:+ i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging themselves. it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the frustrations i have as a teacher, and sad to see that the pixar flu is an epidemic (one would like to think that it's only at one's own school and the grass is somehow greener, or a little less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do think that it is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high and low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick commenting on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why it might not be in the student's best interest (regardless of the hype) to even think twice about working as a human machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact is that many art students don't care about being artists and much of my time in the classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists. hence, the frustration. mark +Pall Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+ I've been thinking long and hard about this thread. There are a few things that I'm having a hard time with. It feels a bit like anyone who was disappointed in the Guggenheim for the Armani exhibit (I was), should be disappointed with this exhibit. It's basically the same thing, right? But there's still something about that line of thought that doesn't sound right. I like the idea of "Visual Culture" as opposed to "Visual Art". But I think the thing was that Armani isn't exactly about "Visual Culture", even. It's about "Consumer Culture". I mean, if someone's wearing an Armani (and you're into that sort of thing), does it really matter what it looks like? I've never been to the MoMA and don't know much about it. I don't feel, as an artist, that a PIXAR exhibit there is like the Easter Bunny showing up at my Christmas party. More like a Bob Ross showing up at my opening. He doesn't appear out of place, but he doesn't really add much either. I'm still thinking about this. Pall -- Pall Thayer p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca http://www.this.is/pallit +Gregory Little <glittle AT bgnet.bgsu.edu> replied:+ can't resist jumping in here, as this "master" has also been "unshackled", but not so much from the "polishing" process of his MFA candidates ;).....(FYI it is interesting to have at least one who perceives himself as a "gem", another word that comes to my mind is "pill", LOL).....I feel happily more unshacked from administrivia and amateur psychology... However, what patrick sez is IMO correct, we in digital arts at Bowling Green State University have built what was at one point a year or two ago a BFA program with over 270 majors in digital art...built entirely on the desire of a generation of kids to do the Pixar thing...with 60% of the faculty in digital and 100% in the school of art finding the pixar industry thing to be NOTART, actually dangerous and corrosive of (A)rt. A very conflicted situation, as I benefited from a zeitgeist that I found somewhat evil...so the strategy became to subvert..we will get them into the program and reprogram them, expose them to "real" art, as most of them have not really seen "realart", as it is not on television often, and turn around their motivations; or at least put thinking critical, even tactical minds into industry to potentially change it...... I have since found the strategy to be largely ineffective. I have concluded that most of the students have no desire to make discursive work, they have nothing really to contextualize or express, they just like the work and want to see their names on the big screen, and simply what to be a part of something powerful with a large audience...I am seeing the work, 3d animation that is, in the context of other functional or decorative arts like jewelry, pottery, etc. Now the same thing is happening with the gaming meme, which will likely be the next MOMA-like exhibition. However, the question that comes to mind for me is this--as some have observed the effect of a museum show on a genre, for example netart in the Whitney being the "death" of netart, what is the effect of Pixar at the moma? [....] "seduce audiences into >reinforcing >what they already believe" Regardless of whether you are Agnostic, aetheist, baptist or buddhist, Mich's painting does deal with some fairly massive, inter-religious questions, without answering them in a simplistic way, ie goodguysbadguys.... And, on an aesthetic level Pixar owes a massive debt to Mikie (using Mikie as a representative)...there is certainly nothing "aesthetically" groundbreaking about the incredibles. [....] >If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script >is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film >production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents >very successfully as a finished work. Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating. PLichty discovered the other day during a class where I had tron playing as background ambience, that polygonal modeling was first developed during the making of tron. However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality. So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic, it is as if cubism, futurism, duchamp, etc etc etc never happened--for obvious reasons. +Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> replied:+ > Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating. The two-disk DVD set has lots of documentaries and preparatory work on the second DVD, which goes into all the making and design in detail. I do recommend it. > However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development > of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality. Yes, it's a wonderful aesthetic solution to a social problem (the impact of computer technology). Very Adorno. :-) > So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic, > it is > as if cubism, [Mr. Potato Head rearranges his facial features crazily] Mr. Potato Head: Hey, Hamm. Look, I'm Picasso. Hamm: I don't get it. Mr. Potato Head: You uncultured swine. > futurism, I'd wanted to do a futurist CG movie for ten years now. You could use a modified voxel system to get that vortex effect. > duchamp, etc etc etc never happened--for obvious > reasons. Imagine a Pixar Duchamp movie. Perhaps it was "Geris Game"? :-) +napier <napier AT potatoland.org> replied:+ At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote: >Mark, >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. >....... > >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you. These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400. Power is distributed differently now so it's hard to compare directly. Paradigms are different but I don't see the differences as that great. The Sistine Chapel was arguably the most advanced rendering of it's time, and told a popular story in visual terms that anybody could follow. It was placed in a public space. This isn't Pollack. It's much closer to Star Wars. Granted, MoMA is supposed to be about Pollack, not the Sistine Chapel, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that these categories have changed. mark +T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com> replied:+ responding inline: On 12/17/05, napier <napier AT potatoland.org> wrote: > At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote: > >Mark, > >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time > >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are > >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. > >....... > > > >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If > >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you. > > These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part > of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not > that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400. The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture -- they gave the pope his power and authority because people *believed* them. Or at least pretended too, but the cultural and social effect is the same. There is so much different culturally, economically and politically from today to the renaissance that I find the comparison of the Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of worthlessness. Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist and tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol that isn't were it's greatness lies. The argument becomes then, is there a sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from entertainments to a sort of greatness? Mark, I know as a Dad you'd probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of the TV, but do you see anything great in them? Your current work, when compared to a Pixar movie on a formal or technical level, is absurdly simple, yet, it's impact on an intellectual and emotional level is, IMHO, much greater. And that's because you're an artist and they are merely entertainers. +napier <napier AT potatoland.org> replied:+ >The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century >Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture Yes it's hard to beat the power of religious belief. But I don't mean 'popular' as 'likable'. I mean these are stories held and believed by the broad population, that had a deep formative impact on society. For the US a common word is "freedom" which is a recurring story/belief/myth in our culture. That story is told by Bush in his speeches, and also by Lucas through the Star Wars series. "Freedom" is to the US(2005) what "faith" was to the church(1400). >I find the comparison of the >Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to >contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of >worthlessness. How about the comparison of Michaelangelo to Pollack? As a painter I find that one a much longer stretch. >Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist >and tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol >that isn't were it's greatness lies. We've had a lot of time to discover the greatness of Mich's work. And now the context of his work is "art" when at the time he was essentially a commercial artist. >The argument becomes then, is >there a sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from >entertainments to a sort of greatness? Probably not with Pixar, and I can relate to Patrick's upset about Pixar in MoMA. Maybe I'm switching topics here to talk about this in more general terms. The general idea of a big budget popular movie being seen as art is not only possible in the future, I'd say it's likely. Over time people will forget the context and just remember whatever makes the experience great. So Mich's work lasts and moves us today, and we call it art, even though other work done in the same context is forgotten or written off as just craft. >Mark, I know as a Dad you'd >probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments >they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of >the TV, but do you see anything great in them? Maybe not Pixar. I would vote for Shrek 2 myself (Dreamworks). The point being that popular film can achieve this lasting "greatness", and centuries from now no one will realize or care that it was part of a cultural propaganda campaign. As Mich's work outlived it's context, so can film (or other popular forms), and that will change the way these things are categorized (ie. as art). mark +Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> replied:+ this thread has been very interesting. one thing that strikes me as odd about it is that the thread, like so many others, is phrased in terms of the NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional bodies. as though it is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does not contain discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do determine what is of value and what isn't in matters of art. +Zev Robinson <zr AT zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+ if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped. but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture or cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV programs, books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more egalitarian and less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and mythologies, and get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would have us believe. Zev +Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> replied:+ > if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped. as silent as a mirror is believed, realities plunge in silence by. i think it can't be helped only in interzones 5, 37b, and 45. and of course it would be particularly tough in ny. +Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> replied:+ Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never heard of or seen a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of assumptions and mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still moderately priced would you please wrap it up and send it over so i can give it to myself for xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally through with all the art nonsense... Thanks, dv +Zev Robinson <zr AT zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+ no, not a mystic, thanks for asking, tho. an artist of sorts, maybe. you may be right that all values are bubbling with assumptions and mythologies, but I hope that you're wrong in saying that they are all abusive bubbles. could some bubbles not be anti-abusive? and if you are wrong, then sets are still available, but you'll have to make it yourself. merry xmas, happy holidays. Zev +Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> replied:+ anti-abusive bubbles would be anti-bubble denouncing their bubbleness when inflated. some recent neoist negative constructs would qualify i suppose, but Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite already had some apophatic bubbles floating around in the 5th century. That's why i was wondering, jokingly. Otherwise values bubble abusively because they only contain recursive ideosynchronised instances of the bubble they are floating in and can thus only abuse their surroundings by enforcing their meaning on them. Art is aggressive, most noticably when shown in institutions that allegedly promote art, but any art is de facto, by claiming itself to be art, abusive to other bubbles, just like Bush brings freedom to Irak. What you proposed sounded like reducing all art production to material objects of culture, which to me is the same as negating art, denying the activity itself, saying it never happened and that all the art garbage you can find in museums just miraculously materialised, claiming what we're all working on here is the mere production of sellable objects that can only be promoted through market strategies. Now i see you have some very nice paintings over at your site, i don't think you'd consider those to be merely sellable objects, otherwise you could have suffised with running a webshop selling acrylic paint in profitable portions. The activity is not abusive, and if you want the anti-abusive: there it is/was happening. While art happens, it outbubbles itself autopoetically. All this rhetoric, discussions like these, although they tend to get tedious because they're just bubbles within bubbles, are inescapable. It's part of the art of art. You can't escape them by saying they're not (supposed to be)about art. And they have some importance: some big bubble might explode any second, others might shower in offering the illusion of an eternal fabric of foam while some slippery youngsters glide to their 7,5 minutes of fame. I think it's quite a spectacle seeing all these young talents relishing in their creativity while producing in the service of power institutions. Apparantly it's the choice of a part of a generation, and you can't judge choices like that. But you can't attribute any other value to them than what they proclaim themselves, within their industrial power bubble, some iconic extra's perhaps or a few subversive gags from within the system approved and nullified by the system, but not much more without being insultingly aggressive to us very sanguine poetic worms stuck in the frozen root of oblivion. [....] +Zev Robinson <zr AT zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+ actually, I agree with most of what you say, and I'm not trying to reduce art production nor negate art's existence, just that changing terms around helps see things a bit differently, situates art in a wider cultural context, and avoids the narrow definitions of art that are prevalent and often self serving in the art world. But some historians and critics have done this while still using the word art. [....] pixar has a long line of enjoyable and entertaining, and witty and clever, works that have stood multiple viewings (with my kids). Many things that I have seen in galleries and museums and cinemas under the banner of art are none of the above. should museums be showing works that are easily accessable elsewhere? Preferably not, but then should they be hosting fashion exhibitions and be charging 20 dollars to get in, following art world trends, be influenced by commercial and financial considerations, etc, which are much bigger issues, and like high and low art, never simple nor clear cut. Art (and artist) are terms that fluctuate culturally and historically, mean different things ad have different values at different times. One could look at artists (Giotto, Reubens, Warhol) also as working for someone else's profits and power (whatever the personal gains that they made), and also look at the art world's mythology of success, and why it might not be in the student's best interest to buy into it, and also look into the art world's mythologies of high and low art. There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time.... just my 2 cents worth. +Pall Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+ > There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and > if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe > they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or > gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive > on their own time.... Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar. Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art practice on the side. > just my 2 cents worth. Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch. +<joy.garnett AT gmail.com> replied:+ With all due respect Pall, et al.: As far as I know, being a fully engaged "devoted artist" requires working and juggling a full-time job -- most anywhere, but certainly here in the NYC coffee-grinder, aka "art market central" (with the notable exceptions of trust-fund babies and blue-chippers). There are zillions of artists who live this crazy struggle out of neccessity without making a tenth of what we would if we worked for Pixar. Much of the discussion here (with a few exceptions such as Zev's post) waxes nostalgic for an avant garde that hasn't existed in yonks... I'd say the stuff to toss out are the trite "starving artist" clichés and those stale post-modern (ie: "dead") moralistic orthodoxies of "hi-lo" culture... okay, back to work; wake me when it's over. +Zev Robinson <zr AT zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+ I never said it was a hobby. so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of their art to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/or are wealthy enough not to have to, are artists? I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people working full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own time. Primo Levi worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the weekends. Andy Warhol was an illustrator. I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the early eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by your own definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an artist? nor are any of the other staff I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years, but have played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of stress, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less "art" than a lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a necessary motto is these intolerant times, whether that means zilch to you or not. [....] +Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied:+ actually, i thought this post seemed extremely reasonable. not at all unrealistic. and a helpful attitude. being an artist, making (and certainly losing a lot of) money at it, it would be tempting to say it was a "career". it is just a fact that there is only an illusion (at least in the US) of there being a "career artists". the chelsea gallery scene and broadway theaters are among the few places on earth that are art for profit. depending where you draw the line, pixar is one of the others. only a handful of choreographers out of the millions could actually live off dance. we don't teach in our spare time, we teach to eat and if there is time left to us, we CHOOSE to make creative things. kids out of school, don't have nearly the pressure to earn, so art is a more viable option. or there are some who max out their credit cards, pay with more than they have. they may think art is a career, but see this is not a long term situation. the "i will spend anything i need to further my career" attitude is completely common, but eventually self-destructive. for the vast vast majority art as a career is just not realistic. it's an activity one can toss expendable cash at (and doing so is absolutely fine, beats drugs. some collect and learn to maintain antique cars, some become gourmets, study in Italy and keep an impressive wine seller. everyone wants to be an expert/brilliant.). yeah it probably will piss people off to even try to burst that bubble, but bubbles are the abusive boyfriend of the art scene. whether they are good deep down or not, for our own safety, we gotta get out of there. no one likes it in the short term, but sometimes medicine just tastes bad. there are things to fix and getting rid of these grand illusions is the first step. [....] + Pall Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+ On 19.12.2005, at 11:11, Zev Robinson wrote: > I never said it was a hobby. No, you didn't but you did say that people can "do something hip and subversive on their own time". > > so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of > their art to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/ > or are wealthy enough not to have to, are artists? I didn't say anything about selling art. I was just talking about making art. I didn't even suggest in the mildest sense that an artist can live off their art. I even said that artists may have to hold down a job on the side to pay the bills. > > I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people > working full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own > time. Primo Levi worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the > weekends. Andy Warhol was an illustrator. There are always exceptions to everything. > > I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the > early eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by > your own definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an > artist? nor are any of the other staff I'm a student but in regards to a personal art practice, you can't compare being an art professor to being an animator at Pixar. I think that most universities require that their professors maintain a personal art practice. It's part of the job. What I'm talking about is the frame of mind. You can work a full-time job and still maintain a view that it is the "on the side" thing. I was doing it for seven years before I decided to go back to school. I'm happy when my art practice manages to pull in a couple of dollars but I can't count on it, so I'm an artist with a job on the side to pay the bills. But some jobs are better for this than others. A couple of years I turned down a job that would have meant a hefty salary boost but I when I realized how much it would interefere with my art, I had to turn it down. > I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years, > but have played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of > stress, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. > > all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less > "art" than a lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a > necessary motto is these intolerant times, whether that means zilch > to you or not. I think if we try to tell young undergraduate art students who are interested in an art practice that, "Sure, you should try to get a job with Pixar and then you can make your art in your spare time" it's a bit misleading. Because most people I know who have gone into that type of work don't have time for a meaningful art practice. [....] +Bosah Pneumatic <bosahgnos AT yahoo.co.uk> replied:+ I understand, and in a large part relate to the thread starters concerns. However, as many have pointed out, art rarely pays the bills. The reality is most art students I've met recently are looking for jobs in advertising, frankly I think a career at Pixar is preferable to that ambition ;). yep, blah, blah, number of genuine 'career artists' is small etc, etc. Thing is I think its very important to point out how CG art is different to other mediums at the moment. Most mediums require some technical skill; from sculpture, painting to video art. Technique though is not art, obviously. What I would be interested to know is how much of the technical aspect you all would consider to be the art, personally I don't think any of it is, it is a given to me. This is not the attitude of most people working in CG however. All art has an element of problem solving to to it, there are technical problems the artist has to solve to achieve! the expression/aesthetic art they want, and solving these can be a rewarding intellectual challenge. They aren't important to the audience, and don't contribute to the artistic weight. Not so with conceptual art, which on the whole can be seen as transferring these problems to somebody else to solve. Which could be seen as actually subsuming the artist to being merely the same as a middle manager in and advertising company passing on their vision to a bunch of creatives to realise, or in extremis passing it on to the audience to work out. CG is highly technical, everything needs working out, and everything requires technical knowledge above and beyond artistic ability. The models (polygon, nurbs or SubDs, topology decisions), the materials (properties, methods, displacements), the way it renders (illumination approaches, layered passes, compositing), the lights, the (virtual) camera lens, the rig on the models, the animation methods etc, etc. As a resul! t in a company like pixar everything is demarcated (sp?), and seriously so too. Modellers, texture artists, lighting artist, animators and a TD to oversee the whole pipeline. You are just another cube dweller in a pipe to make that shot. There is no other rational way of working. It's a job though, it's a creative job, and it's all about problem solving. Is it an artists job though ? Is the TD the artist or the modeller, or the guy who wrote the script, or drew the storyboard or the etc... You get the idea. It's an artistic collective, always. It's like working in any other creative industry, even, advertising. Now, yep, there are a few CG artist who are technically good enough in all areas of the CG pipeline to produce entire works by themselves. Takes a hell of a lot longer, but can be done. It's not relevant though is it ? What is though is the problem with how much technical knowledge is required. This is why art schools have to spend the vast majority! of their teaching time (in regards to CG) making sure the students have the technical knowledge and very little on, for want of a better term, artistic ability, or more accurately, the ability to SEE differently.. So, therefore its not surprising that such students end up more concerned, and turned on to, the problem solving side of the art and less about the actual artistic message. CG is still an extremely young medium. There are some genuine artists in CG with something to say, artists to whom the fact the work is realise in CG is totally immaterial (and immaterial really to the audience). However, I'm sick of seeing female nudes in fantasy settings, or arch viz of photo realistic living rooms built with CG tools. But thats the way its going to be for quite a few years yet. CG artists need jobs, and those kind of images show off their technical ability, and it's the technical ability (and the ability to fit into a pipeline) thats going to pay the ren! t. Sure, the artists who are capable of unique visions and aesthetics get all the props and are most sought after, but even they cannot afford to pick and chose the work they do. Its always skills that pay the bills really. It's no different to painters a couple of hundred years ago relying on sponsors paying for portraits is it ? Nothing has changed, and CG is just following the same paths that every other medium has. It does still however have a problem over other mediums in that the technical knowledge required to make a piece is a lot higher than other mediums. Trouble is, if that changes, as in the tools get easier to use to speak, all of us working in CG will start bitching about losing artistic control over our creations and the software houses 'owning' our art. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 Marisa Olson (marisa AT rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 10, number 51. 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
-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 |