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: 09.08.06
From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:29:33 -0700
Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org
Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org

RHIZOME DIGEST: September 8, 2006

Content:

+opportunity+
1. Kathleen Quillian: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service
(LABS)
2. andrea AT mur.at: call for submissions net_sight 2006
3. jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com: Call for Applicants
4. Joseph DeLappe: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary
Festival of New Media
5. irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement
6. curt cloninger: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville

+announcement+
7. Jim Andrews: Links to Argentine net art
8. marcin ramocki: Anti-Pharmakon AT Artmoving Projects

+thread+
9. Charlie Gere, T.Whid, Lee Wells, marc, Alexis Turner, rob AT robmyers.org,
Patrick Lichty, Michael Betancourt, Pall Thayer, André SC, Jim Andrews,
Jason Van Anden, Eduardo Navas, Don Relyea, Christina McPhee,
salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s
down...

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

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: Kathleen Quillian <isast AT leonardo.info>
Date: Sep 1, 2006
Subject: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS)

Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS)
Next submission deadline: 30 September 2006

Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS), consisting of the English LABS database
and Spanish LABS database, is a comprehensive collection of Ph.D., Masters
and MFA thesis abstracts on topics in the emerging intersection between
art, science and technology. Individuals receiving advanced degrees in the
arts (visual, sound, performance, text), computer sciences, the sciences
and/or technology that in some way investigate philosophical, historical
or critical applications of science or technology to the arts are invited
to submit abstracts of their theses for consideration.

The English LABS and Spanish LABS international peer review panels review
abstracts for inclusion in their respective databases. The databases
include only approved and filed thesis abstracts. Abstracts of theses
filed in prior years may also be submitted for inclusion.

In addition to publication in the databases, a selection of abstracts
chosen by the panels for their special relevance will be published
quarterly in Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA), and authors of abstracts
most highly ranked by the panel will also be invited to submit an article
for publication consideration in the journal Leonardo.

Thesis Abstract submittal forms for English language abstracts can be
found at http://leonardolabs.pomona.edu

Thesis Abstract submittal forms for Spanish language abstracts can be
found at http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/leonardolabs

The LABS project is part of the Leonardo Educators and Students program.

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

2.

From: andrea AT mur.at
Date: Sep 5, 2006
Subject: call for submissions net_sight 2006

mur.at NetWorkArt Contest ?net_sight? 2006

Idea

Since 1998 mur.at has been working on a virtual NetSculpture which is
constantly growing and branching out. This widely ramified Net ? the
leased line net ? offers a democratic and unbureaucratic access to new
communication and information technologies to people engaged in the
artistic and cultural sector in the area of Graz apart from e-business and
e-commerce. The NetNodeSculpture includes an infrastructure which allows
continuous work of art organisations and people engaged in the cultural
sector.

In order to be able to experience the virtual space in real public space,
mur.at initiates a contest for making this virtual sculpture - which is
spread over Graz like a network - visible for all.

Target of the contest

For the promotion of NetArt and NetCulture mur.at offers the possibility
to deal with the community in an artistic way and to implement the winning
project.
The virtual sculpture will be transferred to a tangible space in order to
be visible also as real locality. Therewith the virtual sculpture becomes
a sculpture that can be conceived with all senses in the public space of
Graz. The sculpture shall be developed and implemented in various media.

Desired form of submitted projects

desired are...

.artistic projects, which refer and use the contents and infrastructure of
mur.at, the nodes and/or the mur.at-community.

.artistic projects which excel at using unconventional ideas of
?Visualization?.

.unrealised projects from the various areas of art; projects which deal
with the subject of a NetSculpture. This can be projected in form of
media- and space- installations, sound projects, memorial tablets, photo
or video projects, as long as it appears meaningful with regard to the
subject.
The expression ?Visualization? shall be considered a metaphor and the type
of realisation shall not be limited to a specific medium.

Prize money / Implementation

First prize
The project which is ranked first by the jury will be implemented from
December 2006 to end of May 2007. The budget for the implementation (incl.
remuneration) is ? 10.000,-.
The project will be showcased during a ceremony.

Appreciation prize
The most innovative, but not realizable project will be awarded with an
appreciation prize amounting to ? 300,-.

Exposition
During an exposition opening on December 1, 2006, the 10 best projects
will be presented to the public. The budget for the presentation of the
concepts is
? 200,- each, whereas the form of presentation (choice of media, etc.) is
up to the presenters.

There is no splitting of the prizes.

Jury

Members of the Jury:

1 representative of the mur.at team: Johannes Zmölnig: financial treasurer
of the mur.at executive committee; artistic-scientific assistant at IEM
(Institute for Electronic Music) (Graz, A).

1 representative of the nodes: Reni Hofmüller: media artist and artistic
director of ESC im labor (Graz, A).

1 vote of the mur.at-community: every mur.at member has the right to
vote. The resulting ranking counts as the community-vote.

Ushi Reiter: Artist and cultural producer (servus.at, faces) (Linz, A).

One international representative of the NetArt Community
Rena Tangens: Media artist (Bielefeld, Dt.) (to be confirmed).


The meeting of the jury is open to the public.

When: Friday, November 3, 2006 at 10:00 hrs
Where: mur.at, Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz


Submission

The Call for submissions is open to the general public. The target group
consists of people engaged in the artistic and cultural sector with the
focus on the community of mur.at. There are no limits of age, education or
nationality of the submitting persons.

Please note

Final date for submission is October 15, 2006.
The submission may only be made online by filling out the submission form.

All informations for the submission at http://mur.at/verein/net_sight

In addition to the personal data (not visible for the jury), please upload
(in pdf format) an abstract (max. 3000 characters) as well as a detailed
project description incl. a rough estimate of cost and a time scedule
(Attention: only one pdf-file can be uploaded).
The submitted projects may not exceed a cost frame of ? 10.000,-. Any
maintenance activities of the projects must be included in the cost
estimate.

Due to the fact that the submitted projects will be handled anonymously,
please do not mention names nor logos in the project descriptions.
We can only accept submissions which are complete and made anonymous.

We do not assume any liability for the submitted concepts.
In case of a refusal of a project, its authors are not entitled to raise
any claims upon mur.at or persons acting on behalf of mur.at.
mur.at reserves the right to use the submitted material for the purpose of
documentation.

Notification

The winners (first prize, appreciation prize, the 10 best projects) will
be informed about the results by e-mail until November 10, 2006. In their
own interest, the participants in the contest shall strive to be reachable
at the e-mail address contained in the submission form during the whole
period of notification.

Awards Ceremony / Presentation

When: December 1, 2006 at 19:00 hrs
Where: to be defined

The awards ceremony of the contest will be held on December 1, 2006 during
the exposition of the 10 best project concepts. The artists are not
obliged to present their concepts.
The winners (first prize, appreciation prize) commit to personally receive
the prizes and present their projects during the exposition.
Groups and institutions are requested to nominate one or max. two
representatives. Any travel expenses of the winners for the journey to the
exposition / presentation will be compensated by mur.at (train: 2nd class;
plane: economy class).

The implementation budget and the remuneration for the best project are
dedicated to its implementation. mur.at assists in the whole period of
implementation and reserves the right to ask for a proof of the adequate
utilization of the prize money.

Documentation

It is the intention of mur.at to document the entire contest (incl. all
submitted concepts and the finally implemented project) in an online
archive.

Contact

For general questions please contact:
Andrea Schlemmer (Project Coordinator)
mur.at, Verein zur Förderung von Netzwerkkunst
Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz
tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26
cell: ++43/699/126 05 795
fax: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26
e-mail: andrea_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?)

For technical questions please contact the noc-team:
Monday to Friday from 10:00 to 16:00 hrs.
tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 55
e-mail: noc_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?)

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

3.

From: jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com <jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2006
Subject: Call for Applicants

Unconventional Combinations, Inconceivable Creations
Be part of the future of entertainment!

(September 4, 2006) -- The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab
recognizes that as technologies revolutionize our lives, new opportunities
for writers, designers, producers, programmers, filmmakers, visual artists
and creative thinkers are emerging. As a resident in the New Media Lab,
you?ll push the boundaries of learning and imagination to create product
prototypes that are at the intersection of art and technology. Be part of
the future of entertainment.

The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab is currently accepting
applications for the Spring 2007 session of the TELUS Interactive Art &
Entertainment Programme (IAEP), a five-month, post-graduate residency
focused on creating inventive interactive narrative projects for the
Canadian and international marketplace.

The TELUS Interactive Arts & Entertainment Programme (IAEP) is Canada's
first post-graduate programme for new media training and production, based
on a philosophy that compelling new media content is created through a
collaborative process harnessing a wide range of creative skills,
knowledge and talent. An internationally acclaimed facility, the Habitat
New Media lab has produced award-winning new media prototypes ranging from
simulation-based interactive documentaries, to wireless storytelling
networks, to interactive short films and narrative-driven media
installations.


Apply Now - Application Deadline is October 31, 2006
For more information or to request an application please contact:
habitat AT cdnfilmcentre.com
www.cdnfilmcentre.com


HABITAT New Media Exclusive- By answering our survey you will be one of
the first to own a GelaSkin. GelaSkins are the best iPod skins on the
planet. GelaSkins are made from premium vinyl with photo quality graphics
featuring designs by artists from around the world. When you make an
inquiry about the program by phone, fax or email we will send you a
survey. Send the survey back and you will get a voucher for a Gelaskin. Go
to www.gelaskins.com to check them out.

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

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.

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

4.

From: Joseph DeLappe <delappe AT unr.nevada.edu>
Date: Sep 6, 2006
Subject: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New
Media

Announcement:

The First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media

Attention Graduate Students!

Call For Proposals: Exhibit, Netart, Present, Perform, Project(full dome)

http://www.unr.edu/art/RIFNM.html

The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media will highlight the
work of currently enrolled graduate and phd candidates working in
experimental digital media at Universities throughout the United States
and abroad. Graduate students working in and across disciplines are
encouraged to submit works to be considered for this unique opportunity.
The event breaks down into five interrelated events/venues: exhibit,
netart, perform, project and present.

We invite proposals from currently enrolled graduate and phd students to
submit work for consideration. Artists working in all visual and
performative media incorporating digital systems, including but not
limited to: interactive art, robotics, slash artists, movement/dance,
gaming, net art, full-dome video/animation, generative systems, sculpture,
locative media, electronic music, sound art, experimental theater,
performance art, etc. are invited to apply. Collaborations and works in
progress are welcome and encouraged.

A limited number of travel/accommodation grants are available and will be
awarded by the festival jurors.

Festival jurors: Joseph DeLappe, Chair, Department of Art/UNR, Marji
Vecchio, Director, Sheppard Fine Arts Gallery/UNR, Dan Ruby, Associate
Director, Fleischman Planetarium/UNR

Deadline for submissions: Must arrive by September 29th, 2006

Entry Information:
Please send:
- 200 word maximum description of your work/proposal, specify the
event/venue to which you are applying
- current resume
- name and contact info of graduate committee chair/advisor
- appropriate documentation of your work product (DVD, CDrom, URL).
- please inform us of any technical requirements and/or equipment
necessary to show your work.

Email applications, where appropriate, are welcome - send these to
delappe AT unr.nevada.edu .
If you wish the return of your material, please include a SASE. Our
mailing address:

The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media
Digital Media Studio
Department of Art/224
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, Nevada 89557 USA

This event is sponsored by the Benna Foundation for Excellence in the Fine
Arts, The University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Art, The Sheppard Fine
Arts Gallery, the Fleischman Planetarium and Science Center, and the
Nevada Museum of Art.

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

5.

From: irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp <irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp>
Date: Sep 8, 2006
Subject: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement

1. The "Project netarts.org 2006"

2. Call for the nomination

3. Nomination Form

4. The schedule

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. The "Project netarts.org 2006"

>From 1995 to 2003, The Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts hosted the "Art
on the Net" project promoting the Internet as a space for artistic
expression. After the nine years of "Art on the Net," we launched a new
event called the "Project Netarts.org" 2004. The "Project netarts.org" has
been calling on artists around the world to investigate together the
relationship between Art, the Internet and the Society.

The Exhibition section of the project will feature recent developments in
Internet Art and is open to all forms of creative expression that use the
Internet as their primary medium.

Although this project is focused on the latest developments in the field
of Internet Art, we are also very interested in considering contributions
that reflect the influence of Internet Art production on the wider fields
of Media-Art, Digital Art, curatorial practice, digital pedagogy, and
online publishing.


2. Call for the nomination.

This year, the artworks for the exhibition and the "netarts.org 2006
prize" will be chosen by our Selection Committee. The members of our
committee are;

Mark Amerika, Susan Hazen, Agnese Trocchi, Marco Deseriis, Zeljko Blace
and You Minowa.

The theme this year is "Tagging the Present."

The members will make their own nominations, but we will accept
nominations from the web also. Please send your nomination to us directly
to irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp .

The prize fee for the top selection will be 200,000 yen.


3. Nomination Form

To nominate, please e-mail the following information to us directly:

1. The URL address of your nomination

2. If you are the copyright holder of the nomination, your name, physical
Address, phone number/fax. number, e-mail address are required.


4. The schedule

We will accept nominations by mail from 15th, July 2006 to 15th, Sept.
2006 (your time).

The award-winning artwork will be selected by 30th Sept. The exhibition
will be launched 15th, Nov. 2006. We will soon announce some physical
events to take place in Nov. at the Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts,
Tokyo.


For more information, please visit at our website, http://www.netarts.org

We are waiting for your nomination.

--
You Minowa
Curator
Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts
http://www.netarts.org/
irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp

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

6.

From: curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>
Date: Sep 8, 2006
Subject: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville

POSITION DESCRIPTION
Assistant Professor ? 3D Design/Graphics

The Multimedia Arts and Sciences (MMAS) Program at the University of North
Carolina at Asheville is seeking a full-time tenure-track Assistant
Professor beginning in August, 2007. UNC Asheville, the designated public
liberal arts university in the UNC system, emphasizes academic excellence.
Asheville is a creative and active city located in the scenic Blue Ridge
Mountains of Western North Carolina. Qualified candidates will have a
M.F.A. or related terminal degree. Ability to teach core courses in 3D
animation, 3D modeling, and digital print design at the undergraduate
level is required. Knowledge of new media theory and application, and 2D
digital design is expected. Candidates will possess expert skills and
technical knowledge in related software. The nominal teaching load is 24
credit hours per year. Participation in departmental and university
activities, as well as advising, is expected of all faculty. Preference
will be given to individuals with professional exhibition record and
demonstrable teaching effectiveness. Industry experience is beneficial.

Please send letter of application, curriculum vitae, teaching philosophy,
samples of student work, documentation of creative work, and three letters
of recommendation to: Chair of Search Committee, Multimedia Arts and
Sciences Program, UNC Asheville, One University Heights, CPO 2115,
Asheville, NC 28804-8509. Deadline January 15, 2007. UNC Asheville is an
EEO/AA employer. Women, minorities, and people with disabilities are
encouraged to apply.

http://mmas.unca.edu

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

7.

From: Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2006
Subject: Links to Argentine net art

Here is a page of links to Argentine net art:
http://www.martagonzalezobras.com.ar/pagweb.htm . The page is put together
by Marta Gonzales. It contains links to work from 1995 to the present. A
lot of compelling work here I have not seen before.

Also, here is a site of visual and other experimental poetry by the late
Argentine poet Edgardo Antonio Vigo (1927 - 1997):
http://www.eavigo.com.ar . There is an essay by the Uruguayan poet
Clemente Padin about Vigo at
http://www.thing.net/~grist/l&d/vigo/vigocp.htm

The eavigo.com.ar site was put together by the people at
http://www.vorticeargentina.com.ar . This is an organization in Argentina
that deals with visual poetry of all types.

ja
http://vispo.com

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
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.

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

8.

From: marcin ramocki <mramocki AT earthlink.net>
Date: Sep 6, 2006
Subject: Anti-Pharmakon AT Artmoving Projects

Marcin Ramocki, Anti-Pharmakon

artMoving
Williamsburg
166 North 12th Street (corner of 12th and Bedford)

917-301-6680

September 8 - September 15, 2006

Opening: Friday, September 8, 7:00PM - 9:00PM

Anti-pharmakon is an attempt of sabotaging and displacing the familiar
context of software/interface. "Torcito Portraits" are digital animations
based on re-purposing an old Macintosh musical software Virtual Drummer.
"Anti-pharmakon" is a simple, interactive installation composed of a
treated computer keyboard, CPU and a wall projection. The third piece is a
laser cut metal rendering of recognizable software interface elements.
www.ramocki.net

Also on display (project room) : "Horror Make-up" by Jillian Mcdonald,
www.jillianmcdonald.net

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

9.

+ Editor's Note: The following thread follows a conversation threaded in
the 08.18.06 issue of the Rhizome Digest, regarding the following
article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2303889.html +

From: Gere, Charlie <c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk>, T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com>,
Lee Wells <lee AT leewells.org>, marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org>, Alexis
Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org>, rob AT robmyers.org, Patrick Lichty
<voyd AT voyd.com>, Michael Betancourt <michael.betancourt AT gmail.com>, Pall
Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca>, André SC <andre AT pixelplexus.co.za>,
Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>,
Eduardo Navas <eduardo AT navasse.net>, Don Relyea <don AT donrelyea.com>,
Christina McPhee <christina112 AT earthlink.net>,
salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson <newmediapoet AT yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 5-8, 2006
Subject: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s down...

+Gere, Charlie posted:+

I've just stumbled across the debate about Grayson Perry's article on new
media art, in which I am heavily quoted, and I am sad and slightly
dismayed at the hostility it seems to have engendered. My first reaction
is that some of the responses seem extremely defensive. Also almost
everybody seems to lack the will to deal with the fact that a lot of new
media art is not that great or that interesting and that some other stuff
involving new media that isn't *art* is, frankly, more interesting. I
strongly believe that until new media art or whatever it's called is
prepared to face up to the need to engage in proper critical discussion
about what it actually is or could be, it is doomed to be a ghettoised
activity which enjoys its marginalised status, because, frankly, it's
warmer snuggling together making snide comments about people being in
Murdoch newspapers, than dealing with engaging with such discussion. In
case this sounds overly irritated just to point out that I have been
working in, thinking about and supporting this area of practice for nearly
two decades, and have also been involved in a number of historical and
other projects which have allowed me to see exactly how the same syndromes
repeat themselves (including the defensive refusal to be properly critical
about uninteresting or pointless work, and the failure to engage in the
greater speed of technological over cultural development). If this makes
me the Brian Sewell of New Media Art, so be it.

Three more points:

Yes, I have very strong ideas about what art is or should be.

Yes (thank god) they are not 'constructive'

Yes, of course they are my opinions. Unless I have suddenly assumed
complete omniscience I am not quite sure what else they could be

Charlie (or one of the Charlies, apparently)

PS I love you too, Marc


+T.Whid replied:+

Hi,

I'm replying offlist as well as on as I'm not sure you read RHIZ_RAW often.

>From the article in question:

+++So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome and
thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on her
PC.+++

I agree with this comment for the most part (see this:
http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/google_netartmasterpiece.html)

But what I don't agree with is the 'thought-provoking' part of the
comment. You seem to make the same mistake that many NM artists do:
conflate technological gee-gaws (or wizardry or whatever you want to call
it) with artistic achievement. I'm not familiar with your other writing,
and this was a short interview question so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. I
would be very pleased to hear a clarification or an expansion.

Someone simply hacking around with HTML and Javascript (not cutting-edge
tech to be sure) could be considered a NM artist, but the work could be
much more mind-blowing than Google Earth. I'll give JODI as an example,
but I've never used Google Earth so...

PS: I'm ready and willing to engage in some proper critical discussion :-)


+Lee Wells replied:+

In the big picture if its art it doesn't matter what the technique may be.
God, Bad and Ugly is all the same. Flavor of the week or aged in a long
historic tradition. I personally would rather see more people trying to
save the world for the better than another dumb spoiled MFA being churned
out of the manure spreader of art academia.


+Gere, Charlie replied:+

Dear T Whid and other Rhizomers

I feel I must clarify one or two points about the Times piece and my own
thoughts about new media art, which seem to me to have been misunderstood

I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers
that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact
that what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my
sense that many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or
interested in discussing the work, other than in a very
self-congratulatory or interior way that serves the work ill, and which
does not bode well for its development. I must reiterate that I think (and
have often proclaimed, at recent conferences at Banff and Liverpool for
example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its failure to develop a proper
critical apparatus, and, even more to the point, a stronger sense of what
such work is actually intending to achieve.

My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,
Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as
one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media
company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or
intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot
more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my
browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google
earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting
once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid
of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an
experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use
it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet
etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to
how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert
Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat

My point about the technology is that, in the 1960s, artist really were
among those at the forefront of imagining what new technologies might do,
with (expanded) cinema, video and computing. This was all part of a
techno-utopianism that animated art in the late 60s in particular (and
then got written out of the art history books). But in the 70s and beyond
much of what had been the preserve of art, with concepts such as
multi/intermedia and so on, got coopted by the media industries. What EAT,
CAS etc... were trying to do in the 60s in interactivity, networking,
etc... became part of mainstream new media by the 80s, with the expansion
of the internet, the PC and, of course Apple and multimedia. In the
meanwhile art in the main took a more critical/ironic stance with
conceptual art or retreating back to painting, with a few stalwarts
working at the edges with new technologies, but perhaps with less of a
strong collective sense of what they were doing it for. Video art, having
been a fascinating aspect of a broader interrogation of media and
broadcast, by the 90s had retreated to the gallery to become just another
art-world object, albeit in a black rather than a white cube (exemplified
by the horrendous work of Bill Viola)

OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA,
and elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have
had the same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media
events and seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one
can catch up with friends (if I still have any in the new media art world
after this exchange), but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I
think it means a lack of critical debate and engagement, and a sense of
being an embattled minority, who daren't engage in criticism of any of the
work as that would play into the hands of those who would dismiss NMA.
Thus the sense of embattled self-congratulation and, in my view, the
rather defensive and over-sensitive reactions to the piece in the Times.

One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely
obscure for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for
them. Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming
performances. I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the
area, and should be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being
someone less informed and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more
pertinently, why they should be interested in such an event.

Part of the problem is, that apart from being a viable career choice for
art students and graduates, is what is NMA for, what do people who engage
in it hope to achieve. This is actually a question that I think can and
should be asked about art more generally, especially in a
post-ideological, post-progressive era. More pertinent to NMA is what
might its purpose be in an era where the technologies it uses are widely
available and highly sophisticated, and in which every consumer is now, in
theory at least, able to be a producer, or in other words the kind of
'remix' culture hyperbolised by Lawrence Lessig and Paul Miller among
others. This is not, as several astute correspondents have pointed out,
what Beuys meant by his famous declaration 'every man an artist'. But such
a situation does beg the question of what 'art' can be, if it is not
merely to be a synomyn for 'creativity' and subsumed as part of the
'creative industries' and 'post-industrial' culture.

At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in the
need for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the
more general world of creative production. In particular I believe that
one of the preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that
is unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity
to engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest
must, by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first.
On this count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing
more than clever software.

But I think that this only takes us half way. New Media Artists such as
Jodi, Alex McLean etc... are able to engage in practices that are hard to
fully comprehend, and which confront us with difficulty. And yet at the
same time I am not convinced that NMA has found the way to engage
productively with those outside its stockade, to be both radical enough to
confront people with the not-yet-known, but at the same time offer the
possibility of being understood.

NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in that
it is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end
it must also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated
(those who came to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier
this year, should know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and
domestication in relation to NMA)

"A future that would not be monstrous would not be a future; it would
already be predictable, calculable and programmable tomorrow. All
experience open to the future is prepared or prepares itself to welcome
the monstrous arrivant, to welcome it, that is, to accord hospitality to
that which is absolutely foreign or strange, but also, one must add, to
try to domesticate it, that is, to make it part of the household and have
it assume the habits, to make us assume new habits. This is the movement
of culture. Texts and discourses that provoke at the outset reactions of
rejection, that are denounced precisely as anomalies or monstrosities are
often texts that, before being in turn appropriated, assimilated,
acculturated, transform the nature of the field of reception, transform
the nature of social and cultural experience, historical experience. All
of history has shown that each time an event has been produced, for
example in philosophy or poetry, it took the form of the unacce ptable, or
even of the intolerable, of the incomprehensible, that is, of a certain
monstrosity." (Derrida, 1992: 387)


+marc replied:+

Now you've done it...

I had a post ready to send, from late last night regarding your last email
to the list and now I read this, and end up agreeing on much of what you
have said. I do of course have some reservations but on the whole
appreciate the context and intention behind this post...

Will respond with a reevaluated piece of text, and genuinely feel excited
with the dialogue happening on the list :-)


+Gere, Charlie replied:+

PS: Much of what I have been thinking about art, new media art, art and
technology, art and speed, real time technologies etc... can be found in
my new book Art, Time and Technology (Berg, 2006)

http://www.bergpublishers.com/us/book_page.asp?BKTitle=Art,%20Time%20and%20Technology


+Alexis Turner replied:+

As always, the people who disagree and think that NMA is just fine the way
it is, thank you very much, are the most vocal on the list - they are,
after all, in their niche here. But in my regular contrarian rantings
within the forum, I have discovered that there are many, many who agree
with you, even if they do not generally feel comfortable coming out and
saying it publicly.

This discussion repeats itself endlessly here, with plenty falling on both
sides. Hell, for that matter, I'd argue that every single discussion that
has taken place on this list since I've been on it is about this very
topic.

===Is NMA dead?===
(yes *because it is too self-reflexive and arcane* v. shutupshutupshup you
haters, what are YOUR credentials, anyway?)
===Where has the aura gone/awe and wonder missing?===
(*modern art killed it by raping the viewer instead of titillating them*
v. can we please have an academic discussion that is decidedly NOT about
the viewer - fuck the viewer we're artists and academics and we'll talk
about those things not a bunch of goddamn viewers)
===why is nma so boring?===
(nma that is *not about the technology itself* [uses the technology as a
means rather than and end] is lame whaddayou think v. no
disagreement/response)
===has nma sold out?===
(we are trying to legitimze ourselves by doing what other artists do
[galleries and approval] and other artists are asshats and sellouts, ergo
we have sold out v. *what ever happened to just making art that is
actually good?* v. shutup dipshits ALL ART IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS ART and
you must not be a real artist to say that)

Jesus people, it's the same fucking discussion. Charlie just summed up
every discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did
it in one e-mail.


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

Yup.

And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically
interesting than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more.


+Patrick Lichty replied:+

Something that I find quite funny is that many of us in New Media are
really not used to the scrutiny afforded comtemporary artists, and many of
us would wither under that gaze. Charlie makes some good points.

The IDC discussion about whether NMA talks too specifically about its own
culture brings up a really good set of issues, and lays bare why so much
NMA is not understood by larger audiences at all.


+T.Whid replied:+

Hi all,

(I know this is fairly obnoxious so I apologize for saying I wish I could
post a longer reply now, but I'm busy...)

I'll just respond to this one point that keeps coming up as exemplified by
Rob's line below...

On 9/6/06, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> Quoting Alexis Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org>:
>
> > Charlie just summed up every
> > discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did it
in one
> > e-mail.
>
> Yup.
>
> And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically
> interesting
> than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more.
>

I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of it's
charms, but, to put it bluntly, who cares? It's not art. How is it
relevant? It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically pleasing
than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty mind-blowing
everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking all 90º.

I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons.

One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a NMA
work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings afterall.
IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You can only
paint with paint... you can't build a search engine with it. Working
digitally is fundamentally different. The material is transformed
conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google Earth to an art
work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an Andy Warhol print.

I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie... it seems we all are. We want
NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something essential
to NMA may be lost in the process...


+Alexis Turner replied:+

The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more interesting
that art, and htf did we let that happen? By making NMA self-referential,
elitist, confusing, difficult, pretentious, and combative towards the
viewer.

If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking
those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental
away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing
misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an
outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content
ourselves to living in self-imposed exile.

If, on the other hand, you do not believe that those things are
requirements for an object to be NMA, then there are lessons to be learned
from the outside objects that, while not art, are nonetheless interesting,
engagaging, and awe-and-wonder insipiring to users/viewers. Quite simply,
"what makes them that way?" is the question to ask, and, yes, it does
actually require you to go look at them now and then, even if they are not
as lofty or important as Art with a capital A.


+Michael Betancourt replied:+

If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking
those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental
away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing
misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an
outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content
ourselves to living in self-imposed exile.

I thought the point was airplane rides brought misery. Maybe I'm myopic.

Seriously, though, what I think is very interesting about this argument is
that both experimental film and video art have had it (some might say are
still having it) at a certain point in their history--pretty much at the
moment that the first histories were being written and published in book
form for outsiders.

my 2 cents.


+Pall Thayer replied:+

I think the key to all this is to replace "New Media Art" and "New Media
Artist" with "Art created with new media" and "Artist working with new
media". This may sound like nit-picking-semantics but there's a
categorical difference. Not only in meaning, but more profoundly, in ways
of approaching it. To me, "New Media Art" is guided by the media whereas
"Art created with new media" is guided by the art. i.e. "I have this new
media, what can I do with it?" as opposed to "I have this art idea, what
can new media do to it?"

Something to think about.


+patrick lichty replied:+

Well, this has been my point for a very long time. Most people look at NM
as tool as either tool or medium, for me it's a cultural choice, as I also
know how to paint, draw, work glass, do ceramics, etc. I was raised in
the technoculture by an artist mother and have been using computers to
create since 1978, and so there is not distinction for me. I just find it
curious that there's the New Media nomenclature now. Back in the early
90's, we called it 'Cyberarts'.


+André SC replied:+

What, there are new media artists who haven't looked at Google earth!? ;-)

It's worth checking out, but if you pay for your bandwidth or have caps
like we do here in the third world, be carefull, it chows a serious amount
of those cute little ones and zeros.

Everyone seems to agree that GE isn't art. I want to question that
assumption just for a second. Why: because it has a comercial agenda? (and
artists don't?) was not created by an individual but a team/company (how
much new media art happens in collaborative set ups? - and doesn't the US
legal system treat corporate interests as individual persons?)
because it is functional? because Google doesn't call it Art?

Just for argument sake, lets say some unexpected magic happens between the
CYC AI project and it's integration with Wikipedia and something sits up
out of the fuzz tomorrow morning that convincingly looks like the AIs in
storybooks. And it starts making art of its own accord.


+Jim Andrews replied:+

> Alexis said:
> The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more
> interesting that
> art, and htf did we let that happen?

Google Earth and many another Web service is more engaging than many new
media works, it's true. Keep in mind, though, that these are services. And
can be used as components or engines in new media art works in the same
way that we are used to seeing Google search being incorporated into new
media works. Things like Google Earth are tools that are not in
competition with new media art but, rather, are at the disposal of new
media art.

In the future, net art will use any number of web services to fetch
information and provide engines of various types. I think a productive way
to look at the situation is that there are simply starting to emerge some
terrific tools that are at our disposal, rather than thinking that the
tools are more interesting than art itself.


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

> I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of
> it's charms,

Uh...

> but, to put it bluntly, who cares?

Anyone who is interested in art.

> It's not art.

Nor is painting. I don't understand why decorators are lauded so much.
It's just rollers and emulsion.

> How is it relevant?

It is a use of new technology that is aesthetically and conceptually
engaging and that affects people's worldview. That is a passable
definition of new media art. It will be very interesting to explain why
Google Earth is not NMA and what NMA can do better.

> It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically
> pleasing than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty
> mind-blowing everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking
> all 90º.

An airplane ride is not intended as a presentation of visual information.
Google Earth and a Judd both are.

> I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons.

The point is that NMA may not be as good at what it is meant to do
compared to a hack Google have made.

> One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a
> NMA work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings
> afterall. IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You
> can only paint with paint... you can't build a search engine with it.

You can paint a wall or you can paint a picture. Paint has architectural,
protective, product design, artistic and other uses. It's a lot more
flexible than you give it credit for.

> Working digitally is fundamentally different. The material is
> transformed conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google
> Earth to an art work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an
> Andy Warhol print.

You've seen the Warhol print of the moon landing? It's part of his series
of television images.

> I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd.

An HTML artist not knowing about the <pre> tag is like a painter not
knowing how to use masking tape. Don't confuse nostalgia with worth.

> Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie... it seems we all are. We
> want NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something
> essential to NMA may be lost in the process...

What is this essential property?


+salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it replied:+

a romantic idea of "The Artist" is behind some of the thoughts expressed
in this thread.

for example: is google earth art? yes and no, it depends on what you're
looking for.

different points of view can have varying metrics in defining what is art
and what isn't.

one thing looks clear enough: talking about it can be hard if you don't
agree on what exactly is your point of view.

because many of the thoughts expressed are not even in contrast with each
other: they're just talking about diffeent things.

apart from these considerations, let me give my 2cents.

the focus is still moving. artists (and artworks) are becoming something
different. they started changing in other times, at varying speeds.

to be sincere, i really appreciate things and people that adapt to the new
paradigms: the artist should, really, disappear.

and that's why it shouldn't sound strange to hear someone saying "Google
earth is art"

i really appreciate the attitude because it is the only attitude that is
really contemporary, meaning that it is a deep, profund, expression of the
time we live in.

i really loved william gibson's concept of the artist expressed in "Count
Zero". the artist was something supernatural emerging from technology. it
isn't a human, it isn't an artificial intelligence, it is nothing that you
could connect to an identity: it is something that emerges.

In that case it was a "collaboration". of a strange and peculiar kind, but
it was a collaboration: Tessier-Ashpool's memories, a cowboy's mystical
beliefs, the technological developments in bio-soft, an artificial
intelligence that acheived self-consciousness to the point that it
recognized parts of itself as being independent, setting them free as
separate beings, the instinct of a gallerist, the aims towards immortality
of a one-man corporation, a post-human. there are no boundaries:
everything is, at the same time, artist and not-artist. the art is in the
whole.

we start to have the power to step back from our individuality.

mass-human, mass-artist. we probabily have no escape. should we want one?

new media art vs other art. that is definitely *not* the question.


+Jim Andrews replied:+

I remember reading a 'new media art thinker' say that programs cannot
alter their own code. This of course is false. This sort of thing
illustrates how little computers are understood in digital art circles.
The critic had in mind, I think, that computers are glorified typewriters,
or glorified musical instruments, or picture makers/alterers, etc. If you
think a computer is a normal machine, you will think that digital art will
be normal art. But computers are radically flexible as machines. To the
point that there is no proof, and probably never will be, that there exist
thought processes of which humans are capable and computers are not.
That's how flexible computers are in their possible functionality,
use--and art.

People look at Google Earth and compare it to a new media work of art and
find new media art lacking in comparison. Part of the problem is our
expectations concerning new media art are not well-informed by the breadth
and depth of what is possible in digital art via the nature of computers
and networks of these absolutely outlandish devices.

Google Earth is merely the tip of the Netberg! It is an art and expression
tool just as Word is! We see that the tools can be so well-done as to
challenge our notions of art--which means two things: our notions of art
need to be more ambitious and informed by what is possible with computers;
and the distinction between the tool and the work of art is bound to be
ever more problematized. The main difference between them being the degree
to which the content is supplied by the thing. Word supplies almost none
of the content, invites you to create almost all of it on your own, and
that is the mark of a good tool, as well as the range, quality and
granularity of the features it offers to create that content. You can see
the direction of Google Earth is toward making it more amenable to holding
content supplied by whomever. You can see it heading in a sort of 'Second
Life' direction crossed with realism, journalism and globalism. As a
virtual world. A far cry from Word. Google Earth will be more akin to a
platform, eventually.

Is that the new 'high art'? The platform that can contain a suitably rich
range of new art? Well, no, not on its own. The platform and the art
created for/with the platform are symbiotic. But artists need to be able
to operate, in some sense, at both those levels.


+T.Whid replied:+

Hi Rob,

Let's put it another way. If you find it instructive to compare Google
Earth to NMA perhaps it's just as instructive to compare NMA to banner ads
of the web. Banner ads use new technology (flash or gifs), they want to
change my worldview (buy this product or service) and.. well ok, their not
conceptually or aesthetically engaging (most of the time). But if we
compare NMA art to banner ads, NMA IS FUCKING BRILLIANT!

Google Earth isn't art simply because it makes no claim to be art (tho I'm
sure it could be fit into some cartographic craft history). That's my
point, one can conceptually drag any technological or other phenomenon
into being considered as art (airplane rides, roller coaster rides, Shrek,
9/11) to make a point that art isn't working up to it's potential. This
can be constructive to an artist. The art can be 'inspired by.' But as a
form of criticism I don't think it's instructive.

quoting Charlie's original post:
+++
My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,
Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as
one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media
company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or
intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot
more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my
browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google
earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting
once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid
of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an
experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use
it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet
etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to
how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert
Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat
+++

And I see what he's saying. But is he asking us to be more like
entertainment? I think it would more useful to compare apples to apples
and art to art, not art to entertainment. We'll lose every time.

I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,
doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as anybody,
but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the strategy to
get us there.


+Patrick Lichty replied:+

The difference is that while banner ads, Google Earth, and so on _could be
used_ as art, they are not art in themselves. This is an interesting, but
really askew conversation.


+Gere, Charlie replied:+

One of the points that sometimes gets lost in discussions of NMA is
context and it maybe worth bringing back into the discussion. Taking my
example of comparing Richard Ryman to Shrek or Toy Story I was being a
little disengenuous in suggesting I would probably derive more enjoyment
from the latter to the former even if I appreciate the former as
meaningful art. In fact I greatly enjoy and benefit from looking at art
such as that by Robert Ryman (or by Veronese, or by an anonymous artist
from the Benin period or whatever). In fact I spend a lot of my spare time
in museums and galleries looking at things that could be called art. To do
so requires being in a certain mode of attention, a certain way of being
able to be in my body, to look in a certain way, in a dedicated context,
that the museum or gallery is able, almost uniquely, to supply.

There are certainly all sorts of criticisms one can level at museums and
galleries, but consider for a moment - we have in our culture the
extraordinary privilege of being able to visit spaces dedicated to the
display and enjoyment of art, which require nothing of us but the capacity
to engage with the work. These are spaces which, however much they may be
compromised by commercial demands, still hold to an ideal, however
shakily, of being separate from the demands of capitalism that everything
should be oriented towards profit. In London I can go, for free (or at
least for a minimum and painlessly extracted amount of my income tax) to
Tate Modern for example and look at Carl Andre's bricks in a room
dedicated to making it possible for me to enjoy and understand it. And
yes, I am aware of all the arguments about the art market and its relation
to major art institutions. This does not change the fundamental point
about the possibility of the experience.

I can enjoy these works because I go and see them in a context that
enframes them as art. It makes it possible for me to genuinely get to
grips with the experience of looking at art. At the moment I am sitting at
my PC at work writing this. This is the place where I can most easily look
at net art. But why would I want to? It's my work place. It's where I sit
in a legally mandated swivel chair in a brick and concrete building
organising timetables and so on. That it is possible to look at works of
(net) art from my chair may be a marvellous thing, but frankly I don't
really want to. I want my experience of art to be different, and to take
place in a different kind of space where I am able to adopt the right
mental and bodily attitude towards it. Why would I want to look at
something which is using a similar technology and coming to me through the
same technology as MS Outlook

There is a kind of underlying hostility in much of NMA discourse towards
museums and galleries, which I think is thoroughly misplaced. This is not
to suggest that such institutions are without massive problems, but
nevertheless they serve an incredibly important purpose in preserving and
making art available for us and for offering a space where it can be
properly enjoyed and appreciated. I feel that much of this hostility
derives from a rather old-fashioned anti-elitist avant-garde idea about
the coming together of art and life or some such shibboleth.

But let's be honest: art is always elitist, whether you like it or not.
It's privileged because to begin to discuss it such as we are doing now
always requires a high level of knowledge, thus almost certainly of
expensive education. It's privileged because to be an artist at all
usually requires a similar level of education (I bet a lot of you out
there have got degrees and MFAs in art, and I bet a lot of them didn't
come cheap). Art is elitist because artist have still got to eat, and this
means either, perhaps more honestly, engaging with the art market, or
being employed by education establishments, or joining the great gravy
train of funding, which in this country means being funded by tax payers
many of whom are deeply hostile to what they see as its utter
self-indulgence and pointlessness. Above all it's privileged because it
operates on the expectation that artists need not produce anything useful.
If you doubt the last point, try to explain what social use Carl Andre!
's Bricks or a piece by Jodi actually has, without recourse to appeals to
the idea of art as something that must exist outside of the restricted
economy of the market.

So here's the thing. Art, including NMA, is useless and therefore an
elitist phenomenon. If it wasn't useless it would cease to be art and
become something else, something useful such an activism, entertainment,
software, advertising, and so on. Being useless is art's greatest
contribution to a culture almost totally subsumed by the bottom line. To
be in a position to be an artist, through whatever means is a privilege.
If you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth
and Jodi. The former is useful and the latter useless. The problem with
NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often encountered, the
virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one conducive
to engaging with its uselessness adequately.


+salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it replied:+

>Dal: c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk
> if you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth
and Jodi.
> The former is useful and the latter useless.
> The problem with NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often
encountered,
> the virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one
conducive to
> engaging with its uselessness adequately.

this is just partially true... it's useless if judged in the context of
the workplace, because you cannot do a spreadsheet or wordprocessing
etcetera on it. but this can't be taken as an explanation of anything.

some more truth can be found by looking at stuff without the *need* of
categorizing...

things break barriers on several subjects: creativity, technique, but also
size, complexity, degrees of freedom... you name it, anything goes.

and some of them are "interesting" to some people, some aren't. some may
be interesting only in specific contexts. some of them generate different
kinds of interest in different contexts.

take Microsoft Word: i can write a death penalty sentence or a poem with
it. and my death penalty could be used as a poem, without changing a
single character in it, if i push it in the right direction. that's if i
manage to convince people that that thing they're reading is art.

where is art if i do that? is it in me? because i was good in convincing?
is it on the art critic who bought the theory? is it in the audience
staring at it? is it in microsoft word?


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid AT twhid.com>:

> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,
> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as
> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the
> strategy to get us there.

Oh yes I don't want NMA to be mere entertainment. And Shreck sucks. ;-) My
point is closer to your point about NMA vs. Flash banners. NMA is
generally more engaging than flash banners, which are vapid and cheesy.
The comparison, which *isn't* apples to apples, can be informative. If we
ask *why* NMA is better, it helps to define NMA and shows areas where NMA
can find interesting work to do.

Google Earth is closer to NMA than flash banners are because it both looks
good and makes you think (seriously, if it had been shown at Ars
Electronica a decade ago it would have made quite a splash). It can be
*mis*-described as NMA. I think that unpacking this *in some detail* would
be useful for thinking about NMA.


+Alexander Galloway replied:+

Let me get this straight.. This thread is about how a Turner-prize potter
and a media historian don't think that net art is an avant-garde? Oh,
dear. Rhizome must be in a funk. He quotes Derrida, and everyone gets all
dewy-eyed and reverent.

I'm interested in the refrain about there not being a proper critical
apparatus. I would suggest starting with his countryman Matthew Fuller, or
the media histories of Dieter Daniels or Florian Cramer, or the work of
Geert Lovink and Arjun Mulder (Adilkno's "Media Archive" remains one of
the stunning works of media studies), or Tilman Baumgartel's invaluable
double volume of interviews with computer artists, or Alan Liu's critique
of Jodi, or Mark B. N. Hansen's analyses of new media art aesthetics, or
the "Data Browser" series being published by Autonomedia. This is not to
mention the critical media studies of Lev Manovich, Wendy Chun, Friedrich
Kittler, Tiziana Terranova, and many, many, others. In addition we are
also graced with a series of art historical compendia on the subject, many
of which have been put through the ringer on this list: Blais & Ippolito
"At The Edge of Art"; Tribe & Jana "New Media Art"; Greene "Internet Art";
Stallabrass "Internet Art"; Paul "Digital Art"; Rush "New Media in Art";
Wilson "Information Arts." Incidentally, some of these latter books were
predicted (and upstaged) in 1997 by Vuk Cosic in his fictional "classics
of net.art" book series.

Complaints about the present are often signs of a parochial imagination.
What interests me is not whether or not new media art is a type of
vanguard practice (for it absolutely and incontrovertibly is), but instead
what interests me is how these communities of insiders and outsiders are
constructed and maintained. It seems extremely important to some to defang
the work of say, Heath Bunting, as some sort of juvenile prank, or the
reverse, to induct Jodi into the canon of abstract modernism.

A writer by the name of, ah-hem, Derrida also wrote about video art. And
he wrote about it in his own present, not as a reflection on the art of
the past.

"One never sees a new art, one thinks one sees it; but a 'new art,' as
people say a little loosely, may be recognized by the fact that it is not
recognized."

This type of voluntary, active blindness I find extremely interesting,
least of all because it offers a way out of the Kraussian cynicism that
new art is really all about repetition and recurrence. Derrida isn't
saying that we can't see the new. Quite the opposite. We believe we see
it, but we don't--that's the claim. And it is from this voluntary position
of "false" cultural production (seeing a fiction as true) that new art
gets made and experienced.

This is a logic that shines through quite elegantly in the words of Ernst
Bloch, writing from an earlier moment in the machine age. "Someone once
said that people are in Heaven and don't know it; Heaven certainly still
seems somewhat unclear. Leave everything from his statement but the will
that it be true--then he was right."

The so called "new media art ghetto" has been the topic of much
consternation recently on this list and elsewhere in the community. But I
wonder if it's not the type of emblem that all underground movements crave
and envy. Sure, it's not for everyone. People like Cory Arcangel and Jodi
have started making inroads in the establish art world without betraying
their cred as innovators in the scene. But I fail to see how a movement
with such an exciting history of experimentation and radical refusal
should be bothered by a few dismissive pot shots from the naysayers.

One must remember that thirty years from now every young PhD candidate in
cultural theory and art history will be writing about turn of the
millennium digital culture, just as today they're writing about Stan
Vanderbeek, E.A.T., and Jack Burnham. Why? It's much easier to come to
terms with the past than it is the present. And so our hardest job is
still undone...


+Alexis Turner replied:+

::Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid AT twhid.com>:
::
::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole,
::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as
::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the
::> strategy to get us there.

Let me get one thing straight:
I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm
criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment.

There's a very entrenched belief that something has to be one or the
other, and that mere "entertainment" is a plebian bauble that must be
avoided at all costs. The reality, though, is that thoughtful, critical,
engaging, cerebral Art can be neither entertaining nor painful, or it can
be both. There are many places in the middle.

When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for inspiration,
I refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not the
content. Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it
DOES offer an intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a
chance to fulfill some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or
shocked, a chance to think, or be moved, or escape. Successful
entertainment does many of these things. What does NMA do?

So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art? Because,
honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake of something,
again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer something "more" each
time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find "more" in
the strangest places.)

Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time to
make one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible,
unknkown thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it
promises us something new if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an
airplane captured in mid-flight! Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG,
there's an island in the middle of nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I
bet I'm the only one to have seen this! It's the same reason people play
the lottery, or go to the circus, or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe
this time....* It's even the same reason that art museums work - because
in a still, contemplative space, the viewer is given a chance to realize
that they missed something the first time around. It's the reason a great
novel works (would you argue that novels are only art or only
entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't think of anything more
entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and I would never in a
million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ on this
point.)

Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives something,
ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two are
not mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and
minds of the
people.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Are you suggesting that NMA is really some sort of academic viral media
scheme?


+Alexis Turner replied:+

If by "viral" you mean something that gives its viewers the runs, then yes.

If by "viral" you mean something capable of perpetuating and growing
itself, then no.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Good answer - but you may have caught a stray bullet.


+Jason Nelson replied:+

Alexis and others,

I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to be both
highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick.

But....that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming video
artists or digital still artists or on interactive installation artists.

Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net art
almost always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted
by small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive.

hmmmmm.......kill entertainment equals video art.....

hows this for entertainiing:

http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html


+Eric Dymond replied:+

Don't we call that edutainment?
I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever
state they end up in emotionally.
I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am.
We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it
or not matters not one iota at any point in time.
If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed.
As for conceptually thick..., I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual
work" could be.
Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up
on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into
your need to put something down/on/out there.
Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just
don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia).
Eric
also see Alex's post re: the first net art work.


+Jason Nelson replied:+

I suppose I didnt explain myself clearly

I agree with you Eric, almost entirely......my point has always been that
those small circles, that academic and world of "critical engagement" (we
all of course engage critically), once it has accepted an art form into
its fold, tends to demand certain types of work, work that is easily
slotted into their framework......and while this type of artwork might get
the write ups and all that, the artist tends to get lost in the mix....

so hell yes....artists should create for whatever the hell they
want....that is the reason most of us started creating within new media or
net art or e-lit...that freedom of no certain framework.

However, I do certainly disagree about not caring about the audience.....I
never create with a specific audience in mind, nor do I change my work or
emphasize certain aspects of my work for accolades or hits or
whatever...but I do want an audience, and I am immensely pleased if
someone enjoys my artwork in some small way...and if they dont, well that
is fine as well......


+Alexis Turner replied:+

In response to Eric:

(Work that is both conceptually thick and meant to be entertaining is
*potentially* edutainment. Making a user think and actually teaching them
something are different. Edutainment teaches.)

My suggestion about considering the viewer is in response to one very
specific question that keeps cropping up here over (and over and over
and...) - why can't we get an audience?! Waaahhh!

If you care about and want an audience, or if it bothers you that NMA is
in a ghetto, please read my posts. If you just want to make art and don't
give two shits about who/how many see it, what they think of it if they
do, and where you get money from to make it, then continue doing just what
you are doing and feel free to ignore most of what I say - it has no
application to you.

===================================================

On a slightly different note,
Can we please move the hell away from the word "entertainment?" So many
artists, critics, and academics immediately have a knee jerk reaction to
the word ("Entertainment is for the filthy unwashed masses, not ME"), that
I find it quite useless on here. I am referring only objects that people
respond to with anything other than disgust, hatred, or boredom. These
objects are created by many entities that understand human nature and
human needs, and manipulate that knowledge to acheive a result (I want
bodies in seats, I want to be considered brilliant, I want some fast
cash...whatever). The actual "entertainment" sector is the most visible
and probably largest of these, but it not even remotely the only one.

Good lord, what on earth are you so afraid of? Can you make unique art?
Then I would hope you could debase yourself long enough to look at a piece
of ANYTHING IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD AT ALL without immediately running out
and copying it verbatim. Other forms are not infectious diseases that
will cause you to start plagiarizing them, in spite of what academic
theoreticians would have us believe. Are our minds so impotent and
powerless that, when exposed to a single commercial, we MUST HAVE JIFFY
PEANUTBUTTER RIGHT NOW? (Oh shit, I said JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER. Whatever
you do, do not go and buy JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER right now. Do not think
about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER for the rest of the day. Especially do not think
about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER tomorrow. Do not let JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER
insinuate itself into your life. Sweet. Jesus. I can't stop saying
JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.)
-A.

PS: To quit blabbing and make things concise, I'll just say that my
overall point is simply that the ghetto|bubble is not something others
have put NMA into - it is something NMA keeps itself in by its
unwillingness to sully itself with the <strike>outside world</strike>
JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.


+Eduardo Navas replied:+

Hello everyone,

Most interesting thread. I shall contribute my ones and twos (as in my
decks). Some of Charlie's comments I find polemical. I reflect on his
position below, keeping in mind much of what's been said around them
already.

Here it goes,

On 9/6/06 1:55 AM, "Gere, Charlie" <c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

> I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers
> that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact
that
> what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my sense
that
> many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or interested in
> discussing the work, other than in a very self-congratulatory or
interior way
> that serves the work ill, and which does not bode well for its
development. I
> must reiterate that I think (and have often proclaimed, at recent
conferences
> at Banff and Liverpool for example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its
> failure to develop a proper critical apparatus, and, even more to the
point, a
> stronger sense of what such work is actually intending to achieve.
>


I don't think this is true at all. If anything NMA has and is developing
it's own institutional support that is in some ways complemented by more
established organizations. Granted that such support is not immense, but
it's happening. To be specific to the North of the globe, the Whitney at
least still has the commissioned project up on artport, and the Tate has
commissioned works collaboratively with the Whitney in the last few
months, then you have the recent ISEA events which prove that NMA has
developed a strong community. And of course there is Rhizome working with
the New Museum to make NMA more accessible to the general art public. And
as we know, when this happened initially a lot of noise was made on this
list because it smelled like the good old institution was taking over the
great dream of what NMA could have been. Yet, here is Rhizome, with its
complicated past standing as a bridge between the major institutions and
the more esoteric groups of NMA, riding that fine line between straight
institutional immersion and a more peripheral practice. Take it or leave
it it's a mixed bag one that is now part of our history.

To add briefly, I think of lists like IDC, and New Media Curating which
function at a very high critical level (I know you mention them below).
And ultimately, I consider NMA to be developing it's own set of critics
that don't have to be directly accepted by the more traditional artworld.
It's not necessary to write in Artforum to contribute to culture. Really.
If anything the emerging critics and curators could and do function as
bridges between institutions.

> My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say,
Jodi,
> but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as one
would
> expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media company. This
> certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or intellectually
engaging
> than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot more fun to look at. To be
> honest, given a choice between having my browser get fucked up by
jodi.org and
> zooming around the world on google earth I would almost always choose the
> latter. The former is interesting once, but rather dull the next few times,
> while the latter may be devoid of intellectual depth, but is incredibly
> engaging and rich as an experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I
admire the
> work of Jodi and use it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work
> deconstructing the internet etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty
interior
> stuff. This is similar to how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the
> paintings!
> of Robert Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching
Shrek or
> Heat


I think this comparisons have already been discussed by many on the list.
T. Whid stated that we should not compare apples with Oranges. But let's
take this proposition a bit further.

The word entertainment was thrown around vs. art. And the question
implicitly came up, "what is art" to which Charlie responded in a later
post that it is an elitist practice which costs a lot of money in
education to be part of.

But the real question is, what are the roles in culture of the examples
given by Charlie above? The difference is that Google Earth and Jodi have
different roles. One is a tool for research in the service of very
diverse interests (google earth) while the other is an art work that
proposes specific questions about its subject (the net and the browser).
That someone may find google Earth more appealing than Jodi, or to even
compare them on the same line, means that a specific interest in what art
should be or be like is being played out. This is one of the reasons why
critics and theorists tend to develop a bad name from time to time,
because they are not always willing to observe and define according to
what has happened or is happening, but instead demand that things move in
certain forms according to their visions.

Google Earth and Jodi have complementary roles that are not in opposition,
both can and do support each other based on their particular roles at
large. And to compare them to make sense of intellectual rigor versus a
fun experience simply does not work when it comes to understanding how
culture works. They are part of the spectrum and can relate when
considering the tools used (browsers, code etc. to some degree) but cannot
be presented in opposition. they depend on different institutions and ask
of the user a different frame of mind, that can be aesthetically pleasing
but with different political outcomes.

<--snip-->

> OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA, and
> elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have had
the
> same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media events and
> seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one can catch
up with
> friends (if I still have any in the new media art world after this
exchange),
> but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I think it means a lack of
> critical debate and engagement, and a sense of being an embattled minority,
> who daren't engage in criticism of any of the work as that would play
into the
> hands of those who would dismiss NMA. Thus the sense of embattled
> self-congratulation and, in my view, the rather defensive and
over-sensitive
> reactions to the piece in the Times.


NMA circles might be insular, but then I think this is not much different
from the artworld that most people think about or are part of. I go to
openings in Lalaland from time to time and see the very same people there.
Very small circles. I can go months without appearing and there is
someone there that I know, always. Both worlds are small, and I do
believe they are more in touch than some people are willing to admit. The
question is why this preoccupation to supposedly get NMA "out of the
Ghetto"? To this I will come back very soon.

> One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely
obscure
> for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for them.
> Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming
performances.
> I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the area, and
should
> be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being someone less
informed
> and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more pertinently, why they
> should be interested in such an event.

In a more recent post you explained how art is elitist, esoteric. And
then there's NMA which appears to be "more" esoteric, yet it apparently is
not elitist because it's in the... Ghetto? What does it mean that the
artworld does not get it? Does it mean that NM artists have to waterdown
their work so that it is understood by the general art public and get a
way into an established institution? Who wants in that way? Why? This
is the old avant-garde position going back to Courbet and the whole crisis
in the academy that a century later Greenberg made a career out of.

This is a conundrum that I experienced while Christiane Paul lectured at
the last LACMA institutional critique in 2005. At one point Christiane
found herself explaining how NM works contribue to culture to a German
curator who simply did not see the point in Vuk Cosic's stripping of the
Documenta site. Her presentation turned into an educational moment, almost
like in the classroom, and the curator just sat there, not getting it.
What this means is that NMA has its own codes, it is developing its own
way of functioning it depends on institutions that are not always
connected to museums, and this is fine, but to demand that it somehow
become absorbed by the mainstream out of its supposed ghetto is
disconcerting to hear.

<--snip-->

> At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in
the need
> for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the more
> general world of creative production. In particular I believe that one
of the
> preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that is
> unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity to
> engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest
must,
> by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first. On this
> count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing more
than
> clever software.

This sounds a lot like Greenberg. Perhaps we should reconsider the role
of the gatekeeper? Is this not something that is largely discussed in NMC
and IDC today? Why does art still need this separation and rigor that you
demand, why? Why does NMA have to fit into the art institution like
previous practices? I don't think it completely can, it moves too fast,
it is always dependent on the development of new technologies, even when
the artists don't develop them and come to use them after it has been
absorbed by the culture industry. The truth is the artworld is even more
behind in this sense. Asking the NMA move out of its ghetto may be asking
that it bend backwards to become assimilated by the art institution. And
is this really healthy when the practice has already developed it's own
codes that are not fully dependent of pre-existing institutions? Maybe
times are changing and we should be more conscious and accept this. The
art institution will change as it learns more about NMA.

> NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in
that it
> is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end
it must
> also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated (those who
came
> to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier this year, should
> know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and domestication in
relation to
> NMA)

I find the notion of domestication quite disturbing. Why should NMA be
domesticated? So that it can be comfortably assimilated by the already
established art institutions? What does domestication really imply? It's
a colonial ideology of making sure something functions according to a
particular vision--it is a demand for assimilation based on pre-existing
parameters. NMA should not be domesticated, but simply understood
according to what is has and is contributing to the world at large.


+Don Relyea replied:+

I think Charlie and Alexis make some really good points.

One day I was fiddling with the jargon on one of my art project webpages
and I noticed that the Google adsense script became confused about whether
the page was about art or technology. I laughed and realized I had lost
focus on the art in my art project.

What is new media art's place in the overall world of art? Is it
reasonable to assume that NMA should be or will be held to different
standards than regular art simply because it uses new and different
technology? Is it reasonable to assume that new media artists don't bear
the same responsibilities that regular artists bear. Is it reasonable to
make a distinction between the new media artist and the regular artist?

When Charlie mentioned context and museums I thought about what it is that
makes a work of art good enough to get into a museum. I thought about
several of my favorite works in museums. Typically the works speak on
several levels to a broad audience and their place in the spectrum of art
history is obvious. In some cases they are profound and in some humorous
and whimsical but their message is communicated clearly to their intended
audience. Children can marvel at their aesthetic and intellectuals can
chew on their gristle.

A show that came to mind was the Calder exhibit that came through town
when I was young(7 or 8). I remember being amazed at the mobiles and
kinetic sculptures even though I had no clue about the science behind
them. Later when I took physical science I remembered Calder's work and
revisited it and it spoke to me at another level. Calder had made the
technology behind his work transparent to the viewer. Calder's work
required no knowledge of physical science to appreciate, but if you have
the knowledge you appreciate it even more.

If NMA wants to be more successful in the overall art world NMA needs to
do the same thing. It needs to speak to a broad audience on several
levels, it needs to be deep enough to be not understood immediately but
easy enough to understand when the viewer puts forth some effort. It needs
to say something meaningful. It needs to be packaged in a way that art
historians can easily see the context and place in the spectrum of art
history and write about it intelligently. If I am not a techno-weenie I
should still be able to appreciate NMA.

In real life if you want to get technical work published in mainstream
magazines you have to simplify the work down to terms normal readers and
the editor will understand otherwise you run the risk of limiting your
exposure. I don't know any art historians with computer science and
engineering degrees, most have art history degrees. So it stands to reason
if you want art historians to write about your work you need to package it
in ways that make their job easier. I'm not saying simplify your work, I'm
saying simplify the way you write about and package your work.

Google Earth makes the technology transparent to its users, that is one of
the reasons why it is so engaging. It's fun, it works and its easy to use.
I don't think Google Earth is art but I certainly think it could be used
in a work of art.

I am not opposed to art being fun, engaging and easy to use either.

Also since I am fairly new here I'm pre-emptively apologizing for
re-stating anything that has already been said before my arrival.


+Christina McPhee replied:+

unless.....................you are the banner art collective!

http://www.bannerart.org/

courtesy of Brandon Barr and Garrett Lynch.

critical thinking and conceptual development within the medium.


+Jason Nelson replied:+

The are many issues belting about within this new media art debate, "the
domination of the conceptual", " academic/critical acceptance", "loss of
fun" and on.

However, the one central and underlying ghost floating beneath nearly all
these posts is audience. Some dont care about audience, some are angry
about being ignore by a particular audience, and others want to change the
audience.

But, what we sound like are a bunch of starving accountants in the desert
fighting over
the last few mice and edible cacti. If the few hundred (being generous) of
us actively making work really tried to expand our audience (or not),
finding users and viewers outside these small circles, we really wouldnt
care about not getting two thousand dollar grants or bother ourselves with
a single essay.

I mean seriously can someone tell me why one might get 100 hits from an
online
gallery's posting of artwork, while a mention on a radio station blog or
landscaping site brings in thousands, or tens of thousands. This is not to
criticize art centered sites, but instead to again call for us to apply
some of our amazing creativity and processing and technical prowess to
building a larger, more diverse audience.

And no....I am not saying we should make work targetting a wider audience,
but that with the hundreds of millions of possible viewers/users, surely
there are a few percentage points interested in our crazy creations.

Is one art critic worth more than a hundred plumbers?

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

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 11, number 34. 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.

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