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.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +