::So how much do I have to pay you to agree with me?

Nothing. I more or less already agree with you (save for the potential artistic
merit of a work vs. its effect: two words, and the first one is Leni), which,
if you had actually considered my e-mail in its entirety and not as a series of
dissonant, unconnected sentences, and/or had you bothered to visit and ponder
the original artist's site you might have figured out. In spite of my general
agreement with what you say on the list, however, I do find getting petulant
about RFID projects every time they come up to be quite tedious insofar as it
is rather a waste of righteous anger.

::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.

and…

::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.

AND…

::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless
::I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast
::option.
::

So, in other words, the intention of your constant degradations of RFID
projects on the list is no more, really, than a personal, mental
noodling on nothing more than a personal interest, to a relatively small and
incestuous community (Rhizome), rather than a substantive attempt at tackling
or changing the problems with RFID on a meaningful scale (Wired). (Whole
sentence = you are lacking balls, sir, and your protestations against RFID are
a mere whimper against a project destined to make a much larger bang.)

To summarize, please disregard my general postings on the subject, which were
really just a curmudgeonly challenge for you to put your money where your mouth
is. Alas, there is only mouth.
-Alexis


-Original message, from Rob-

::> We make money, not art.
::
::So how much do I have to pay you to agree with me?
::
::> I hadn't realized that all artists had to have the same intentions and beliefs
::for their work to receive a stamp of artistic merit.
::
::I'm not quite sure how we got here, but I do not particularly care what artists
::think. Unless they think "I'm going to kill Rob in three, two…", in which
::case the fact that they are an artist is a secondary consideration.
::
::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.
::
::> Many atrocities and wrongs
::> have been committed throughout history with the aid of artists, but that
::doesn't make
::> their work any less art.
::
::I'm not sure about that. Thomas Kinkade's shops would be a good counter-example.
::
::> It makes a call for those who disagree to respond with
::> their own work rebuking the first.
::
::If you see a mugging in progress, mugging someone else is not always the best
::way of reporting the incident.
::
::> But that requires action, balls, and
::> creativity, each of which this project has in spades.
::
::So, given this, its promotion of RFID is unproblematic? Or is it the presence of
::RFID that gives the work its "balls" and creativity?
::
::> Enough, at any rate, to
::> get a write up in Wired, ensuring a lot more people than those on this list
::> will hear (about) it.
::
::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast option.
::
::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.
::
::-Rob