<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: December 23, 2005<br /><br />Reminder: Should you ever find that an issue of the Rhizome Digest was<br />truncated by your mail server, you can view the entire publication online,<br />at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/digest/">http://rhizome.org/digest/</a><br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+note+<br />1. Lauren Cornell: A couple of notes on the new site<br /><br />+opportunity+<br />2. Stephanie Martz: Mobile Exposure 2006 Call for Works<br />3. Jeremy Beaudry: CALL FOR ARTISTS - Spectacles of the Real: Truth and<br />Representation<br />4. katerie gladdys: University of Florida Faculty Vacancy DIGITAL MEDIA<br />ARTIST<br />5. messere@oswego.edu: New Media Position at SUNY OSWEGO<br />6. Marisa Olson: Fwd: OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art,<br />video, animation, shorts)<br />7. Vicente Matallana: Dead line remainder - ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS<br />-worth 6.000. Euros<br />8. Marisa Olson: Southern Exposure announces call for proposals<br /><br />+announcement+<br />9. Judith Fegerl: re|sonance|network|futures|005 catalog out now!<br />10. basak senova: ISTANBUL_04: Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance<br />11. Archive Registrar: _ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit<br />12. sachiko hayashi: Hz #7<br /><br />+thread+<br />13. T.Whid, Plasma Studii, marc, Jason Van Anden, patrick lichty, Rob<br />Myers, Ryan Griffis, Jack Stenner, Eric Dymond, Plasma Studii, manik,<br />miklos@sympatico.ca, Jim Andrews, mark cooley, Pall Thayer, Gregory<br />Little, napier, Zev Robinson, Dirk Vekemans, Joy Garnett, Bosah Pneumatic:<br />NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships<br />that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions<br />allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students<br />or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to<br />Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools<br />to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor<br />or excluded communities. Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for<br />more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell@Rhizome.org<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />1.<br /><br />From: Lauren Cornell <laurencornell@rhizome.org><br />Date: Dec 19, 2005 11:38 PM<br />Subject: A couple of notes on the new site<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />So, as you may have noticed, we launched the new site this morning. We are<br />fixing glitches now.<br /><br />I just wanted to point out a couple of small but significant text changes<br />we made.<br /><br />First, we changed the title of 'Superusers' (those who filter messages<br />from RAW onto the front page and to the mailing list RARE) to 'Site<br />Editors.' This decision came out of a conversation with (those formerly<br />known as) the Superusers in which we decided that the title Site Editor<br />more accurately and clearly described the work they do.<br /><br />We also changed the 'Community Directory' to the 'Member Directory'. Under<br />the new membership policy, Rhizome's community – defined here as people<br />who participate in email discussions and our various programs – is now<br />made up of Members and non-Members. So, again, we thought Member Directory<br />was more accurate.<br /><br />We also introduced the idea of RhizPaper which refers to the background<br />image on the site. We'd like to turn this image over periodically with a<br />new image by a different artist. The starting image is a rendition of<br />root by our designer, Sarah. I should credit Marisa here: She came up<br />with this idea as a way to have artists participate in the design..<br /><br />Also, we didn't switch over the title for Net Art News as we are still<br />mulling over feedback and there are a couple of related technical issues<br />we need to address that that got laid to the wayside as we headed towards<br />the launch. So, stay tuned for that.<br /><br />All that said, let us know if you have any thoughts on the site. Things<br />you like, things you cant tolerate, etc. :)<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Lauren<br /><br />Director<br />Rhizome.org<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />2.<br /><br />From: Stephanie Martz <stephanie@microcinema.com><br />Date: Dec 16, 2005 10:25 PM<br />Subject: Mobile Exposure 2006 Call for Works<br /><br />Mobile Exposure<br /><br /> * An international touring exhibition of moving image art made by and<br />for mobile devices<br /> * Presented by Microcinema International<br /> * Curators: Patrick Lichty and Microcinema International<br /> * Judges: Addictive TV (United Kingdom)<br /> * Excerpts to premiere at San Francisco International Film Festival<br /> * Deadline: Received by March 31, 2006<br /> * Screenings: worldwide<br /> * Grand Prize: Panasonic AG-DVX100A 1/3" 3-CCD 24P/30P/60i DV Cinema<br />Camera<br /> * Fees: US$5<br /> * More information write: submissions@microcinema.com<br /><br />TWO SCREENING PROGRAMS<br /><br />Mobile Exposure 2006 (moving images made by mobile devices)<br /><br />Mobile Exposure 2006 Video Ringtone Festival (on-line/on-mobile device)<br /><br />Mobile phones, PDA's, i-pods, and other hand-held devices have already<br />gained widespread acceptance as tools to capture as well as experience<br />music and photographs. Now these devices are being further designed and<br />equipped with video capabilities - both for viewing as well as capturing.<br />What are the potentials of the handheld device as a cinematic tool for<br />expression, activism, experimentation, and exhibition? With the recent<br />announcement of the i-pod video device and the Emmy Awards creation of a<br />new mobile film category, the advancement of this medium is now a foregone<br />conclusion…the train has left the station that is for sure, but on what<br />track is it heading?<br /><br />How will viewing images on the small screen change our perception of the<br />moving image arts? How will the moving image arts change to present works<br />on a hand-held device? These are some of the questions that Mobile<br />Exposure 2006 hopes to address.<br /><br />CONCEPT Mobile Exposure 2006 is looking for works that address mobile<br />culture and/or are made WITH or to be EXHIBITED ON mobile/handheld<br />devices. Our criteria are very broad; reflect on the mobile and locative<br />through the medium or the concept. We encourage hybrid works as well (for<br />example: imagery made with hand-helds and then post produced, mixed with<br />sound in a classic filmmaking procedure).<br /><br />CALL FOR WORKS The Mobile Exposure 2006 handheld moving image program is<br />an exploration of the potentials of mobile video and culture.<br />Practitioners are invited to submit all genres of work, less than 15<br />minutes in length. Video Ringtones should be 2 minutes or less in length.<br /><br />WHAT WE WANT: We are looking for two types of works:<br /><br />Made for viewing on a mobile device and<br />Made WITH a mobile device for viewing on the big screen (or little screen<br />too if possible).<br /><br />We are looking for works made using cell phones, obsolete video cameras,<br />wrist cams, toy (NON-vhs/dv/hi-8) video cameras, PDA's, and even small<br />cameras that create mpg moving images. Please do not send any material<br />using conventional video cameras unless it specifically relates to mobile<br />culture. For films destined FOR the small screens of hand-held devices,<br />any method of filmmaking is acceptable.<br /><br />SUBMISSION GUIDELINES and CHECKLIST see our Submission FAQ<br />see the Submission Checklist<br /><br />You must fill out the on-line form found here: Submission Form (for all<br />calls).<br />FEES: US$5.00 payable by check, money or credit card/Paypal online. Please<br />send check with submission or PAY ONLINE.<br /><br />Please send us your screeners on VHS, CD, mini-DV, or DVD, readable on PC.<br />PAL or NTSC accepted for screeners. DVDs region 1 or 0 only.<br /><br />For exhibition we will require works on mini-DV (preferred) or unauthored<br />DVD (mpeg, avi, or mov files only). Mini-DV PAL or NTSC OK. Unauthored<br />data files must be in NTSC. We may also accept some video ringtone<br />submissions via upload. DVDs region 1 or 0 only.<br /><br />Must be 15 minutes or less, including all titles…NO EXCEPTIONS.<br />Ringtones 2 minutes or less.<br /><br />For works destined for the big screen please make sure that frame rates<br />and screen size are "viewable" (720 x 480 format preferred for NTSC,<br />analogous for PAL).<br /><br />A brief synopsis of the work(s) of up to 150 words and a short biography<br />of the artists of up to 50 words maximum is also requested. Still .jpeg or<br />.gif (PC formatted) should be included on a CD along with biographical<br />materials and synopses.<br /><br />Please include a stamped, self-addressed postcard that we will send back<br />to you as indication of reception of your film.<br /><br />ALL SUBMITTED ITEMS (papers, DVDs, tapes, cards, etc) MUST HAVE THE ARTIST<br />NAME, NAME OF THE WORK, CONTACT, AND WHICH SECTION OF THE FESTIVAL YOU ARE<br />SUBMMITING TO WRITTEN CLEARLY.<br /><br />Deadline: March 31, 2006 (arrival at the address below)<br /><br />Please mail all submissions to:<br />Independent Exposure 2006<br />c/o Microcinema International<br />1528 Sul Ross<br />Houston, TX 77006<br />USA<br />+1-415-864-0660<br />FAX: +1-509-351-1530<br /><br />Please address all inquiries to:<br />Stephanie Martz, Associate Curator<br />submissions@microcinema.com<br /><br />SCREENINGS - VENUES - AWARDS:<br /><br />Mobile Exposure 2006 will be comprised of TWO SHOWS - presented in two<br />screenings and formats:<br /><br />1. RINGTONES: Online (films for the little screen). Film program will be<br />available for download to mobile devices<br />2. On-screen: A traveling theatrical festival<br /><br />Screenings will be held worldwide<br /><br />We are pleased to announce our collaboration with the 49th San Francisco<br />International Film Festival. Mobile Exposure 2006 will premiere at the<br />Festival as part of a special program devoted to mobile moving images.<br /><br />Selected artists receive a US$50 honorarium/advance on exhibition fee<br />royalties and will be eligible for our awards program.<br /><br />Addictive TV to judge Independent Exposure 2006, Curate "best-of",<br />Panasonic Grand Prize<br /><br />We are also pleased to announce our collaboration with Panasonic<br />Broadcast. For our 2006 Independent Exposure season, a grand prize will be<br />awarded to a filmmaker selected by United Kingdom audiovisual artsts and<br />VJs ADDICTIVE TV www.addictive.com. The grand prize will be a Panasonic<br />AG-DVX100A 1/3" 3-CCD 24P/30P/60i DV Cinema Camera. Other prizes will be<br />announced at a later date.<br />Addictive TV will curate a "Best of Independent Exposure 2006" which will<br />then screen in San Francisco in fall of 2006. Addictive TV will also<br />select a grand prizewinner.<br /><br />Winners will be selected and notified by September 1, 2006.<br /><br />TERMS see Full Terms<br /><br />Upon acceptance, practitioners will be awarded a $50 honorarium. Artists<br />will be contacted by Microcinema International regarding the exposure of<br />works through festival exhibition, online screenings, promotional<br />materials, and on print media (prints/catalogues) for gallery showings.<br />All filmmakers agree, when submitting, that they have secured the<br />necessary rights to screen the works in this touring festival, and that<br />Microcinema is granted a non-exclusive 3-year license to screen work(s) at<br />any one of Microcinema's Independent Exposure 2006 or Mobile Exposure 2006<br />screening tours and Microcinema's on-line festival website as well as on<br />www.microcinema.com and www.independentexposure.com for promotional,<br />archival and other non-commercial uses). All artists retain copyrights.<br /><br />About Patrick Lichty Lichty is an artist, scholar, and curator in New<br />Media and technological arts, and is noted for his expertise in arts using<br />mobile technologies. He is Editor-in-Chief of Intelligent Agent Magazine.<br /><br />About Addictive TV www.addictive.com<br /><br />"If there ever was a truly groundbreaking bunch of guys in the VJ world,<br />it's certainly this lot" said DJ Magazine, voting Addictive TV number one<br />in their first ever worldwide VJ poll in 2004. The London based group of<br />DJs, VJs and producers have been championing the art of the VJ and pushing<br />it into mainstream media for a decade now.<br /><br />Performing internationally, crisscrossing the art and club worlds,<br />Addictive TV have played at venues from the Pompidou Centre in Paris and<br />the roof of the National Theatre in London to Tokyo superclub Ageha and<br />the UK's Glastonbury Festival. Recent audiovisual performances include the<br />2005 Roskilde festival in front 20,000 people. and Sven Vath's amazing<br />Cocoon Club in Frankfurt, using 25 projectors. And as VJs, in the past the<br />guys have mixed live visual sets for artists including Howie B, Andrew<br />Weatherall, Goldie and Fatboy Slim.<br /><br />On the flipside, producing for television, Addictive TV were the first to<br />put VJs on TV back in 1998 with their Transambient series for Channel 4<br />(UK), and in the last five years have produced four seasons of the ITV1<br />music series Mixmasters, commissioning over 300 artists worldwide<br />including many of the best names in electronic music from Miss Kittin and<br />DJ Spooky, to Plump DJs and Derrick Carter plus a whole host of<br />international VJs. In 1999, they set up what is acknowledged as the worlds<br />first VJfocused DVD label, releasing compilation DVD albums fusing music<br />and visuals; Releases include Audiovisualize, cult classic in the genre<br />Transambient and the Mixmasters series.<br /><br />This year, Addictive TV judged the VJ category at the 2005 Diesel UMusic<br />Awards, the Radio 1/BBC archive Superstar VJs competition and DJ<br />Magazine's TScan Awards. Also in 2005, the team broke new ground<br />organising the sellout music and visuals hybrid festival Optronica at the<br />National Film Theatre and bfi London IMAX cinema; the first festival<br />dedicated to the audiovisual genre plus the first time the IMAX venue has<br />been used for live performances in such a way. Currently Addictive TV are<br />working on the Rapture Riders video mashup for EMI, remixing Blondie Vs<br />The Doors, for release in November 2005.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/hosting/">http://rhizome.org/hosting/</a><br /><br />Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year.<br /><br />Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's<br />fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other<br />plan, today!<br /><br />About BroadSpire<br /><br />BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting<br />a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as<br />our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans<br />(prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a<br />full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June<br />2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />From: Jeremy Beaudry <jeremy@boxwith.com><br />Date: Dec 18, 2005 6:03 PM<br />Subject: CALL FOR ARTISTS - Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation<br /><br />"Spectacles of the Real: Truth and Representation in Art and Literature"<br /><br />OPENSOURCE Art & the Illinois Program for Research in the Humanities<br />Champaign-Urbana, Illinois<br />March 2-31 2006<br />matthart@uiuc.edu<br /><br />OPENSOURCE Art has joined with the Illinois Program for Research in the<br />Humanities (IPRH) to create "Spectacles of the Real: Truth and<br />Representation in Art and Literature."<br />Investigating the relation between realism, the ?real,? and the image;<br />philosophical realism and the idea of artistic truth; and the resurgence<br />of realism in art and literature, this series of exhibitions and talks<br />will combine IPRH's acknowledged strengths in humanities scholarship with<br />OPENSOURCE's burgeoning reputation as a site for innovative art and<br />curatorial practice.<br /><br />Please download the full Call for Artists (pdf) for information about the<br />two "Spectacles of the Real" exhibitions and our exciting program of talks<br />at:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://opensource.boxwith.com">http://opensource.boxwith.com</a><br /><br />Deadline for artist proposals: Feb 1, 2006<br />Exhibitions open: March 2, 2006<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />From: katerie gladdys <kgladdys@ufl.edu><br />Date: Dec 20, 2005 8:07 PM<br />Subject: University of Florida Faculty Vacancy DIGITAL MEDIA ARTIST<br /><br />University of Florida<br />School of Art and Art History<br />Faculty Vacancy - Assistant Professor<br />DIGITAL MEDIA ARTIST<br /><br />The School of Art and Art History invites applications for a tenure-track<br />faculty position in Digital Media. The starting date is August 15, 2006. <br />For more details on this search see:<br />www.arts.ufl.edu/art/resources/facultyvacancies.asp<br /><br />Responsibilities: Teach undergraduate and graduate students and<br />participate in program development within both the School?s and the<br />College?s interdisciplinary Digital Media Program; conduct a program of<br />research appropriate to the discipline; and contribute appropriately in<br />the area of service to the university, the community and the profession.<br /><br />Qualifications: Excellent artist and committed teacher with the ability<br />to work in an interdisciplinary manner within the School of Art and Art<br />History/College of Fine Arts and have the ability to foster research and<br />pedagogical collaborations with academic departments throughout the<br />university. Applicants must be conversant with technical, aesthetic, and<br />contemporary critical issues in digital media and the arts. Expertise in<br />3-D animation and programming strongly desired with additional experience<br />in interactive, motion, or time-based digital technlogies. A strong<br />theoretical background is preferred. MFA or equivalent professional<br />experience; teaching experience beyond graduate assistantship desired.<br /><br />Rank and Salary: Assistant Professor; nine-month salary commensurate with<br />qualifications and experience.<br /><br />The University of Florida is a comprehensive, graduate research<br />institution with 48,000 students and membership in the prestigious<br />Association of American Universities. Gainesville, which is consistently<br />ranked as one of the nation?s most livable cities, is located midway<br />between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Together, the<br />university and the community comprise an educational, medical and cultural<br />center for North Central Florida, with outstanding resources such as the<br />University of Florida Performing Arts (Phillips Center for the Performing<br />Arts, Baughman Center and the University Auditorium) the Harn Museum of<br />Art, the Florida Museum of Natural History, and the Hippodrome State<br />Theater.<br /><br />The School of Art and Art History, organized within the College of Fine<br />Arts, plays an important role in the academic life of the university and<br />in the community. The School has 35 full-time faculty with approximately<br />600 art majors. Degree programs include the BA, BFA, MA, MFA, and PhD. <br />Areas of study include General Art Studies, Art History, Art Education,<br />Museum Studies, Studio Art (majors in Ceramics, Creative Photography,<br />Drawing, Digital Media, Graphic Design, Painting, Printmaking, and<br />Sculpture). Degree programs are accredited by NASAD and the Southern<br />Association of Colleges and Schools. The School of Art and Art History<br />homepage is located at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art">http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art</a>.<br /><br />Application Deadline: For full consideration, applications should be<br />submitted by January 13, 2006 when the committee will begin reviewing<br />applications. Applications will continue to be accepted and reviewed<br />until the position is filled.<br /><br />Application Procedures: Applicants must submit letter of application, CV,<br />and teaching philosophy. Include 20 examples of student projects and 20<br />examples from your portfolio in a digital format on CD or DVD. Also,<br />include addresses, email and phone numbers of three references who have<br />been asked to send letters of recommendation, along with a SASE (for<br />return of the material) to:<br />Digital Media Artist Search<br />School of Art and Art History<br />P. O. Box 115801<br />University of Florida,<br />Gainesville, FL 32611-5801<br /><br />An Equal Opportunity Institution<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome ArtBase Exhibitions<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/">http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/</a><br /><br />Visit "Net Art's Cyborg[feminist]s, Punks, and Manifestos", an exhibition<br />on the politics of internet appearances, guest-curated by Marina Grzinic<br />from the Rhizome ArtBase.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/art/exhibition/cyborg/">http://www.rhizome.org/art/exhibition/cyborg/</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />From: messere@oswego.edu <messere@oswego.edu><br />Date: Dec 21, 2005 9:12 AM<br />Subject: New Media Position at SUNY OSWEGO<br /><br />State University of New York at Oswego<br />Communication Studies<br />New Media<br /><br />The Communication Studies Department and the Center for Communication and<br />Information Technology (CCIT) seek to fill a tenure track position at the<br />assistant professor level in the area of New Media. Insofar as<br />computational media materially challenge traditional disciplinarity, the<br />successful candidate?s terminal degree might me in any number of fields,<br />from multimedia communication or graphic design, to media ecology or<br />humanities computing. Previous teaching experience and a record of<br />successful grant administration are desirable. The ideal candidate should<br />be able to teach a combination of undergraduate and graduate courses,<br />which will not only develop both beginning and advanced practical skills,<br />but will also examine the theoretical dimensions of New Media. In<br />addition, the candidate should be able to situate technical developments<br />in the New Media within broader cultural and societal domains, and be<br />prepared to education students for global and multicultural comm!<br /> unities.<br /><br />CCIT is an interdisciplinary laboratory founded to teach new media and<br />communications technology. The Center is co-sponsored by Communication<br />Studies, the Graphic Arts program and the Information Science program, the<br />Human Computer Interaction program and the Dean of the College of Arts and<br />Sciences. We seek a dynamic individual with the capacity to seek funding<br />and research opportunities and develop strategies that would ensure that<br />CCIT laboratories maintain cutting edge technology. The candidate would<br />play a central role in developing a graduate program in new media. In<br />addition, the specialist in New Media would interact with partners such as<br />the new Cinema Studies Program, as well as new initiatives in the Theatre<br />and Music Departments<br /><br />The Communication Studies Department offers programs in Communication,<br />Broadcasting and Mass Communication, Journalism and Public Relations and<br />is housed in Lanigan Hall, which has recently received a million dollar<br />renovation with state-of-the-art television and graphics facilities.<br /><br />Applications should include a cover letter, vita, transcripts and three<br />letters of recommendation and should be sent to:<br /><br />New Media Search Committee<br />Communication Studies Department<br />Lanigan Hall<br />SUNY Oswego<br />Oswego, New York 13126<br /><br />Review of applications will begin January 23, 2006 and will continue until<br />the position is filled.<br /><br />SUNY Oswego is an Affirmative Action Employer<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions<br /><br />The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to<br />artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via<br />panel-awarded commissions.<br /><br />For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected<br />to create original works of net art.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/">http://rhizome.org/commissions/</a><br /><br />The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the<br />Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the<br />Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and<br />the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has<br />been provided by members of the Rhizome community.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />From: Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org><br />Date: Dec 22, 2005 8:45 AM<br />Subject: Fwd: OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art, video,<br />animation, shorts)<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />From: anne@freewaves.org<br /><br />OPEN CALL: LA Freewaves (experimental media art, video, animation, shorts)<br />*PLEASE POST/FORWARD*<br /> Too Much Freedom? LA Freewaves 10th Celebration of Experimental Media Arts<br /><br /> Postmark Deadline: February 15, 2006.<br /><br /> The showcase will present experimental media art from around the world at<br />art venues in Los Angeles in November 2006 and through the Freewaves web<br />site. Media art works include experimental video and film (narrative,<br />documentary, art, animation, etc.), DVDs, websites, simple installations,<br />and video billboards. Works from the festival will also appear on public<br />television, cable stations and video-streamed on the Internet.<br />Competitive selection process will be conducted by a group of<br />international and local curators with diverse specialties and<br />backgrounds. Notification of acceptance is in July 2006. Artist payments<br />will be $200 for selected works.<br /><br /> How to Enter:<br /><br /> * Work must be completed since January 1, 2003.<br /> * Entries must be postmarked to Freewaves by February 15, 2006.<br /> * Include completed entry form<br /> * Label entries with title, artist?s name, length, date of work and format.<br /> * Include a resume or bio plus a one paragraph description for each work<br />submitted.<br /> * For websites, indicate URL address on application form.<br /> * For installation proposals, include additional description and<br />diagrams/images.<br /> * If you are in US, include self-addressed stamped envelope for return of<br />work.<br /> * There is no entry fee to submit work for consideration, however, we<br />highly encourage those who can afford it to become LA Freewaves members<br />with a $25 donation. With membership, you support our programs so that we<br />can continue to promote and exhibit innovative new media art during this<br />difficult time.<br /><br /> Send To:<br /> LA Freewaves<br /> 2151 Lake Shore Ave<br /> Los Angeles CA USA 90039<br /> Questions: write anne@freewaves.org<br /><br /> LA Freewaves is a nonprofit organization which survives on grants and<br />donations.<br /><br /> ————————————-<br /><br /> Open Call Entry Form<br /> Too Much Freedom? LA Freewaves 10th Celebration of Experimental Media Arts<br /><br /> Please type or print clearly.<br /><br /> Artist Name:______________________________________________<br /> Street Address:___________________________________________<br /> City, State and Zip Code:____________________________________<br /> Country:_________________________________________________<br /> Email Address:____________________________________________<br /> Phone Number:___________________________________________<br /> —————————————<br /> Title of Entry 1:____________________________________________<br /> Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________<br /> Format/URL:______________________________________________<br /> Running Time: ________ minutes<br /> —————————————<br /> Title of Entry 2:____________________________________________<br /> Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________<br /> Format/URL:______________________________________________<br /> Running Time: ________ minutes<br /> —————————————<br /> Title of Entry 3:____________________________________________<br /> Description/Date of Work: ___________________________________<br /> Format/URL:______________________________________________<br /> Running Time: ________ minutes<br /> —————————————<br /> For format, indicate: -DVD -Mini DV -VHS -Website (indicate URL) -Silent<br />Video Billboard -Other (explain)<br /><br /> ___Yes! Sign me up for membership. Here?s my $25 donation. I want LA<br />Freewaves to continue to promote and exhibit innovative new media art.<br /> ___ I?m not entering the festival, but sign me up for membership. LA<br />Freewaves rocks!! (Indicate name, physical address and email above and<br />send form with your $25 check.) Make membership check or money order<br />payable to LA Freewaves.<br /><br /> Enclose resume/bio, work description text and SASE. For questions and<br />entries, contact Anne Bray at anne@freewaves.org or:<br /><br /> LA Freewaves<br /> 2151 Lake Shore Avenue<br /> Los Angeles, CA 90039 USA<br /> (323) 664-1510<br /><br /> a media arts magnet<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />From: Vicente Matallana <ube@laagencia.org><br />Date: Dec 22, 2005 11:36 AM<br />Subject: Dead line remainder - ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS -worth<br />6.000. Euros<br /><br />We are contacting you just to remind you that the registration deadline of<br />the<br /><br />ARCO/BEEP NEW MEDIA ART AWARDS<br />Sponsored by BEEP, in collaboration with ARCO<br /><br />WORTH 6.000. Euros<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.arco.beep.es/">http://www.arco.beep.es/</a><br /><br />is next 16th of January.<br /><br />There are two ACQUISITION PRIZES:<br />1) Off-ARCO Prize: worth 6.000 euros<br /><br />Artworks presented by individual artists or collectives. Any artist using<br />in a significant way new technologies can be presented.<br /><br />Before ARCO'06, these eligible artworks must also be previously submitted<br />for individual artist or collectives, through registration on the awards'<br />website www.arco.beep.es <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.arco.beep.es/">http://www.arco.beep.es/</a>><br /><br />On this website you can find the complete awards¹ rules and the<br />registration form.<br />2) @ARCO Prize: worth 8.000 euros<br /><br />To be eligible, an artwork must be shown and presented at the 25th edition<br />of ARCO, the International Contemporary Art Fair, in Madrid (9-13 February<br />2006), and must have a significant component involving new technology or<br />electronic media.<br /><br />You can contact for further information to<br /><br />premiobeep@laagencia.org<br /><br />Wish you luck.<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8.<br /><br />From: Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org><br />Date: Dec 22, 2005 10:41 PM<br />Subject: Southern Exposure announces call for proposals<br /><br />Hi. This is from one of my very favorite nonprofit art galleries/org's in<br />San Francisco. Considering that SF's art 'scene' generally revolves around<br />the nonprofits, that's saying a lot… ~Marisa<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />CALL FOR PROPOSALS: SoEx OFFSITE<br /><br />An opportunity for emerging artists to develop and create new public works<br />in San Francisco that investigate diverse strategies for exploring and<br />mapping public space.<br /><br />SOUTHERN EXPOSURE OFFSITE:<br /><br />Southern Exposure?s 2006-2007 Exhibition and Artists in Education programs<br />will move beyond the gallery walls in order to present new forms of work<br />in public space. Southern Exposure will temporarily relocate in the summer<br />of 2006 so that the building that we have always called home at Project<br />Artaud can undergo a seismic retrofit and upgrade. Southern Exposure is<br />utilizing this unique opportunity to extend our programs into the public<br />realm. Southern Exposure, founded in 1974, has a long history of<br />presenting community-based projects. Through this new program, Southern<br />Exposure has a goal of encouraging artists to work experimentally in<br />public space, enabling artists to develop new works that could not<br />otherwise be realized, and generating a critical dialog about emerging<br />creative practices.<br /><br />ABOUT THE PROJECT:<br /><br />Southern Exposure will commission a series of public art projects that<br />investigate diverse strategies for exploring and mapping public space.<br />Artists selected through this open call will be commissioned to produce<br />new work.<br /><br />This project is informed by the legacy of the Situationists, an<br />international artistic and political movement that emerged in the 1950s<br />and 1960s. The Situationists sought to radically redefine the role of art<br />in society with a particular interest in everyday experiences in public<br />space. They developed key concepts such as the dérive ? the practice of<br />drifting through urban space - and psychogeography ? the study of the<br />effects of the geographic environment on the emotions and behavior of<br />individuals. In addition, a goal of these projects is to reconsider the<br />Situationists? strategies in light of new technologies such as Global<br />Positioning devices and wireless communication, which have fundamentally<br />transformed our ability to navigate public space.<br /><br />This series will feature a range of projects that utilize strategies such<br />as simple acts of walking and note taking, to projects that employ<br />high-tech and technological apparatuses as a means to fuse virtual and<br />real experiences or to disseminate geographical and historical<br />information, to performances, actions, or events. These projects may<br />involve the audience?s participation, enabling the public to engage in<br />acts of urban mapping and reflect on their own experiences in public space.<br /><br />Southern Exposure seeks proposals for artwork in various media including<br />1) artwork with a physical presence such as: installation, sculpture, or<br />public intervention; 2) ephemeral and participatory artwork such as:<br />performance, tour, walk, discussion, or lecture; 3) technology-based work<br />such as new media or sound art; or 4) projects that combine the above<br />categories. Projects will be presented between September 2006 and Spring<br />2007. The duration of the projects can range from a single performance to<br />repeating events or a long-term installation. Selected artists will<br />receive an honorarium and production budget ranging from $500 - $5,000<br />depending on the scope of the project. Southern Exposure will work with<br />artists to provide support, promote their projects, and will create a<br />publication that documents the program series after the projects have been<br />presented. Southern Exposure will also provide a home base for artists to<br />work, with space for information about the projects to be accessible to<br />the public.<br /><br />APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCESS:<br /><br />The SoEx OFFSITE application is available for download as a PDF file.<br /><br />The proposals will be reviewed by several members of Southern Exposure?s<br />Curatorial Committee. We are seeking proposals from artists who<br />demonstrate a potential for creative growth working in the public realm,<br />or artists who would like to extend their practice into the public realm<br />but have yet to work this way.<br /><br />Please mail or deliver your proposal package to Southern Exposure.<br />Southern Exposure does not accept electronic submissions.<br /><br />SoEx OFFSITE<br />Southern Exposure<br />401 Alabama Street<br />San Francisco, CA 94110<br /><br />Application Deadline: Materials must be received at Southern Exposure?s<br />office by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2006 (this is not a postmark<br />date). Hand deliveries will be accepted.<br /><br />Notification Deadline: Artists will be notified by later no later than<br />March 31, 2006. Please do not call before this date.<br /><br />INQUIRIES:<br /><br />You can find all of this information and more at www.soex.org in the SoEx<br />OFFSITE section. If you have questions regarding the application process,<br />please contact us by email: programs@soex.org. Subject heading of the<br />email should read: ?SoEx OFFSITE.?<br /><br />About Southern Exposure<br /><br />Southern Exposure is a 31 year old, non-profit, artist-run organization<br />dedicated to presenting diverse, innovative, contemporary art, arts<br />education, and related programs and events in an accessible environment.<br />Southern Exposure reaches out to diverse audiences and serves as a forum<br />and resource center to provide extraordinary support to the Bay Area's<br />arts and educational communities. Activities range from exhibitions of<br />local, regional, and international visual artists? work, education<br />programs, and lectures, panel discussions, and performances. Southern<br />Exposure is dedicated to giving artists?whether they are exhibiting,<br />curating, teaching, or learning?an opportunity to realize ideas for<br />projects that may not otherwise find support.<br /><br />For more information go to www.soex.org or call 415-863-2141.<br /><br />This program is made possible through the generous support of the National<br />Endowment for the Arts and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.<br /><br />….<br /><br />S O U T H E R N<br />E X P O S U R E<br />Dynamic, cutting edge art, education, and community programs since 1974.<br /><br />401 Alabama Street @ 17th Street<br />San Francisco, CA 94110<br />t: 415.863.2141<br />f: 415.863.1841<br />e: soex@soex.org<br />w: www.soex.org<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />9.<br /><br />From: Judith Fegerl <email@jdth.net><br />Date: Dec 16, 2005 4:24 AM<br />Subject: re|sonance|network|futures|005 catalog out now!<br /><br />sonance.artistic.network<br /><br />Download the complete catalog<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://re.sonance.net/catalog/005/resonance005_catalog_LoRes.pdf">http://re.sonance.net/catalog/005/resonance005_catalog_LoRes.pdf</a><br />"The future of |sonance|network|"<br /><br />.. is a Workshop in which people meet, who are linked to one another by<br />the common use of the extended working environment of |sonance|network|,<br />in order to exchange their work and ideas.<br />.. is a Workshop, in which |sonance|network| is made lucent and<br />possibilities of active participation are pointed out.<br /><br />.. is a Workshop, in which the future of |sonance|network| is brought up<br />for discussion.<br /><br />Follow-ups<br /><br />* An Internet publication of the discourse meeting "The future OF<br />|sonance|network|" will be publisehd on the resonance005 homepage.<br />resonance005.sonance.net<br /><br />* Cyclic rounds of talks will be created.<br />Note: from the 11th to the 13th of December 2005 netznetz is organizing<br />the symposium/sprintosium 2005, which will relate to the topic of MANA.<br />www.netznetz.net<br /><br />The |sonance|network|event-team looks forward to an interesting<br />end-of-the-year event, to countless project concepts and to an exciting<br />inquiry on the Internet.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sonance.net">http://www.sonance.net</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://resonance005.sonance.net">http://resonance005.sonance.net</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />10.<br /><br />From: basak senova <basak@nomad-tv.net><br />Date: Dec 18, 2005 3:47 PM<br />Subject: ISTANBUL_04: Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance<br />Istanbul Screening Programme 4<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nomad-tv.net/serial_cases">http://www.nomad-tv.net/serial_cases</a><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />20.12.2005 @19:00<br />Istanbul Bilgi University Dolapdere Campus ? Theater<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Eyal Danon (Holon, Israel)<br />Trespassing<br />Ruti Sela & Ma'ayan Amir (Alei Zahav, 5:30 min, 2005, Beyond Guilt#2, 18<br />min, 2004) | Ruti Sela & Clil Nadav (loopolice, 6:55 min, 2003) | Avi<br />Mugrabi (Details 3&4, 9 min, 2004) | Annan Tzukerman (Anxious Escapism,<br />2005) | Nira Pereg (Souvenir, 5 min, 2005) | Artists without Walls (April<br />1st), 19:30 min, 2004).<br /><br />Orfeas Skutelis and Branka Curcic (Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro)<br />Mapping Rightwing Extremism (Fighting for what's left)<br />Brosko Prostran (Touching, 4:30 min, 2004) | Filip Markovinovi? (The Army<br />and Me, 24 min, 2005) | Mirjana Batinic (Identity: Balkans, 2:30 min) |<br />Bob Miloshevic (Algorythm, 6 min, 2004) | Dragan Predojevic (Die Faksche<br />Idee, 54 sec) | Malden Marinkov (Déjà Vu, 9:40 min) | Miroslav Jovic<br />(Triumph of E-will, 2:20min, 2005).<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Serial Cases_1 Acquaintance is a joint project of ten curators from eight<br />countries. The first stage of Serial Cases will be presented throughout<br />November 2005 March 2006 as an exchange Video Screening Program in eight<br />different cities. Parallel cases covered by the works along with cultural<br />inputs from these regions are the basis for this screening programme<br />series.<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />The curators of the project are Michal Kolecek (Usti nad Labem, Czech<br />Republic), Antonia Majaca (Zagreb, Croatia), Basak Senova (Istanbul,<br />Turkey), Matei Bejenaru (Iasi, Romania), Margarethe Makovec and Anton<br />Lederer (Graz, Austria), Galia Dimitrova (Sofia, Bulgaria), Eyal Danon<br />(Holon, Israel), Orfeas Skutelis and Branka Curcic (Novi Sad,<br />Serbia and Montenegro).<br /><br />Digital post production of the project was coordinated by Eyal Danon of<br />Israeli Center for Digital Art, Holon.<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Istanbul screening programme is hosted by NOMAD at Istanbul Bilgi<br />University Dolapdere Campus ? Theater<br />—————————————————————<br />NOMAD<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nomad-tv.net">http://www.nomad-tv.net</a><br />—————————————————————<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />11.<br /><br />From: Archive Registrar <registrar@deepyoung.org><br />Date: Dec 20, 2005 5:05 AM<br />Subject: _ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://deepyoung.org/current/blank/">http://deepyoung.org/current/blank/</a><br /><br />_ This Concept: The Immaterial Immaterialness Exhibit<br /><br />Deep/Young Anodyne Laboratories is pleased to announce its newest ethereal<br />exhibit, "_ This Concept," currently housed & viewable at Deep/Young<br />Ethereal Archive via the aforementioned URL.<br /><br />"_ This Concept" collates a series of email instructions posted by Curt<br />Cloninger to the Rhizome RAW mailing list between 6/5/2005 and 8/11/2005. <br />Rather than have these pre-objects disappear prematurely into the ether,<br />we have chosen to re-circulate them at varying<br />semi-stable frequencies in order to ward off any untoward residual<br />calcification that may have inadvertently accumulated in their absence.<br /><br />As You Wish,<br />Archive Registrar<br />Deep/Young Ethereal Archive<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org">http://www.deepyoung.org</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />12.<br /><br />From: sachiko hayashi <look@e-garde.com><br />Date: Dec 20, 2005 5:56 AM<br />Subject: Hz #7<br /><br />Hz: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hz-journal.org">http://www.hz-journal.org</a><br /><br />Hz #7 presents:<br /><br />[articles]<br /><br />Exploding, Plastic and Inevitable: the Rise of Video Art by Jeremy Welsh<br />Jeremy Welsh, a video artist and professor at the Bergen National Academy<br />of the Arts, Department of Fine Art, Norway, presents a condense history<br />of the medium which came to be known as "Video Art."<br /><br />Directory.Linking 2:/The Immersive State of Reality[Game]Play. by MEZ<br />Experimental cyber poet MEZ observes today's game play and asks us "<br />Should artists learn from ARGs [Alternative Reality Games'] ability to<br />push genre-dimensionalities beyond the emptiness of forced sterile<br />institutionalised [sanctioned] interactivity?"<br /><br />The Old and the New and the New Old: A Conceptual Approach Towards<br />Performing The Changing Body by Franziska Schroeder<br />Franziska Schroeder examines two modes of performance in relation to the<br />body and technology and goes on to search for the third - "the new old."<br /><br />Synchronised Swamp: Uncanny Expressive Mathematics by Pierre Proske Pierre<br />Proske explains his "Synchronised Swamp," a computer generated simulation<br />of a mathematical model of a natural phenomenon.<br /><br />Listening to the Earch by Andrea Polli<br />"Heat and the Heartbeat of the City" and "N." are two projects by Andrea<br />Polli, a digital media artist who works in collaboration with<br />meteorological scientists for better understanding of our climate through<br />data sonification.<br /><br />ORAMA Project by David Boardman<br />David Boardman's ORAMA "wants to offer a new social tool able to support<br />the need for new collaborative imaginaries and narrations necessary for a<br />redefinition of the cities, the urban spaces and their identities. "<br /><br />[Net Art]<br /><br />Mapa by Influenza<br />Triangles by Compound Pilot<br />Stand by Your Guns by Jillian McDonald<br />Mire Cruft by Robert Sphar<br />Flying Puppet by Nicolas Clauss<br />Hz is published by Fylkingen, Stockholm. Established in 1933 Fylkingen<br />has been promoting unestablished art forms throughout its long history.<br />For more information on our activities, please visit<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fylkingen.se">http://www.fylkingen.se</a><br /><br />Sachiko Hayashi/Hz<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />13.<br /><br />From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>, Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org>,<br />marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, Jason Van Anden<br /><robotissues@gmail.com>, patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com>, Rob Myers<br /><rob@robmyers.org>, Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>, Jack Stenner<br /><jack@jigglingwhisker.com>, Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>, Plasma Studii<br /><office@plasmastudii.org>, manik <manik@ptt.yu>, miklos@sympatico.ca<br /><miklos@sympatico.ca>, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, mark cooley<br /><flawedart@yahoo.com>, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>, Gregory<br />Little <glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu>, napier <napier@potatoland.org>, Zev<br />Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>, Dirk Vekemans <dv@vilt.net>,<br /><joy.garnett@gmail.com>, Bosah Pneumatic <bosahgnos@yahoo.co.uk><br /><br />Date: Dec 16 - 21, 2005<br />Subject: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA<br />+T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> posted:+<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html</a><br /><br />Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:<br /><br />"Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more<br />visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord with<br />the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual<br />disciplines, especially design."<br /><br />To which he added this commentary:<br /><br />"Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual Culture. A<br />totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What the two share is<br />Design."<br /><br />…a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.<br />+ Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:+<br /><br />i agree. but while maybe half (probably less than) is "visual culture",<br />there's another half that's theoretical culture. art that is satisfying<br />in both is rare, but art that satisfies in experience culture<br />(interactivity, the visual or theoretical being secondary to the<br />experience created) or anything other than visual or theoretical<br />(traditional ways of seeing "art") is even more rare.<br /><br />am in school, watching younger people, people who've never had much<br />previous experience in programming, electronics or interactivity. who<br />actually have a lot stronger intuitive sense of it that many of the<br />teachers of a previous generation. gallery owners, curators, funders,<br />etc. tend to even be a few generations behind that. it's certainly not<br />always the case, but the vast majorityy. it will just be a waiting game,<br />when the enlightened of today take over the decision making positions.<br /><br />oh well. masterpieces don't become masterpieces until we're dead. so<br />there's no hurry. just make a bunch now while we still can, so we leave<br />them with something. the economics are a little ahead of the culture part<br />in this respect. the economics is just a game but one that's slightly<br />more savvy.<br /><br />judsoN<br />+marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> replied:+<br /><br />'most art says nothing to most people'…<br /><br />h.bunting :-)<br /><br />I said it also, but he put on a billboard…<br /><br />marc<br /><br />+T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> posted:+<br />On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:<br />> What would Jackson do?<br />><br />> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have<br />> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.<br />><br />> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art<br />> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it<br />> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say<br />> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at<br />> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these<br />> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual<br />> Culture instead of Visual Art.<br /><br />I'm not really following this arg – I don't see how it follows that<br />it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at<br />Pixar as opposed to PS1.<br /><br />I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that<br />the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and<br />content (i know, i know – hopelessly modernist definition of art).<br />Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the<br />form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D<br />representations of form go they are extremely far advanced – way<br />beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and<br />content – tho entertaining – doesn't attempt a sophistication or<br />critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.<br /><br />Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have<br />the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar<br />doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're<br />just damn good entertainers.<br /><br />><br />> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -<br />> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of<br />> making expressive paintings?<br />><br />> Jason Van Anden<br />> www.smileproject.com<br />+patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> replied:+<br /><br />Here's the problem with this show-<br />BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at<br />which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been<br />reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o<br /><br />(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the art!)<br /><br />Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy<br />home for that time.<br /><br />When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?<br />PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make<br />shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough to<br />get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head through a<br />titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost as bad as<br />hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their<br />creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake<br />sale management…<br /><br />Two points here.<br />One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of<br />the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The<br />problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out the<br />catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".<br /><br />Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are<br />close, though.<br /><br />Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.<br />Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium<br />Falcon, out the door…<br /><br />I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think that<br />the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect<br />that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just another<br />small notch down, IMO.<br /><br />I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at<br />the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to<br />see the X-wings and Star Destroyers…)<br /><br />I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and<br />sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work<br />that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.<br /><br />But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for<br />challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli<br />for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.<br /><br />Patrick Lichty<br />Editor-In-Chief<br />Intelligent Agent Magazine<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.intelligentagent.com">http://www.intelligentagent.com</a><br />1556 Clough Street, #28<br />Bowling Green, OH 43402<br />225 288 5813<br />voyd@voyd.com<br />+Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> replied:+<br /><br />[….]<br />In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?<br /><br />[]<br />….<br />Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.<br />+Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com> replied:+<br /><br />On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br />><br />> In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?<br /><br />In what way does it? i'm not gonna argue either way, but it seems the<br />burden of proof, whether PIXAR or <your favorite conceptual artist<br />here>, is to make a case for its discursiveness. if one thinks there<br />should be a burden at all, anyway. of course, anything can be discursive.<br />my refrigerator has an interesting history, i'm sure.<br />><br />> Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.<br /><br />there's discursive for you.<br />my problem with the PIXAR thing is that it's already everywhere, it<br />doesn't need explanation - as the "look at the work" statement makes<br />clear. i'm sure lots of nice critical essays can be and have been written<br />about the role of pixar and popular animation in larger global<br />culture. and i'm also sure that there are plenty of interesting<br />connections with contemporary and historical art that can be made. but<br />is the exhibition doing this at all?<br />it seems an obvious blockbuster, bring-in-the-movie-audience move. in that<br />way, i'm with Patrick and twhid… why should we want to see a<br />cultural institution (of a specific mission) use its resources to support<br />something that arguably doesn't need its support in the least.<br />maybe i'll learn something extremely fascinating about pixar, but if it's<br />about their work… well, i can get it from just about any bog box<br />store/video rental place/free on network TV.<br />unless they've done some really groundbreaking or critical work that would<br />never make it in their usual market, i don't know why i'd care.<br />best,<br />ryan<br />+Jack Stenner <jack@jigglingwhisker.com> replied:+<br /><br />I empathize, similar experience here. I forwarded the article to our<br />department email list this morning, since earlier in the week the<br />show was triumphantly announced. The majority of undergraduate and<br />graduate students here (Texas A&M Visualization Lab) clamor for<br />internships and eventual jobs at ILM, Pixar, Blue Sky, etc. It's a<br />struggle to communicate the breadth of creative opportunity available<br />outside the scope of entertainment. There's a constant battle between<br />those who want anything creatively produced to be afforded the title of<br />art, and those who have something more specific in mind.<br /><br />You watch as a mass of creative potential blindly follows the pied piper<br />into the wilderness. Hopefully a few take a different course.<br />While I agree the MOMA has focused on design in the past, I think they<br />have a responsibility to be clear about the distinction……or is that<br />solely the critics job?<br /><br />(just my opinion)<br />Jack<br />+patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> replied:+<br /><br />I only sent this to rob.<br />However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's still<br />big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I might<br />say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly) because it<br />challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if<br />only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief.<br /><br />This is the difference (challenge vs. lull) which is the difference.<br /><br />My original answer is as follows.<br />> In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?<br /><br />Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual<br />culture element, and it says something about culture through the way<br />they use technology and the range of stories they use.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />>Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.<br /><br />In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay.<br /><br />Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment<br />ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of<br />virtuosity in form.<br /><br />Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim?<br />Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met?<br />Does Pixar belong in the MoMA?<br />We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses<br />if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks,<br />Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous<br />conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses.<br /><br />If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they<br />should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to<br />Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting<br />argument.<br /><br />Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney<br />extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big<br />art money.<br /><br />If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like<br />"All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than<br />The Incredibles.<br /><br />Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today.<br /><br />+Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> replied:+<br /><br />If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster show<br />(as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in the UK<br />are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.<br /><br />But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent the<br />2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.<br />Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take a<br />look at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.renderman.org/">http://www.renderman.org/</a> .<br /><br />As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to their<br />films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.<br />And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over how<br />nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> replied:+<br /><br />I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts<br />students) for the past semester.<br />It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning<br />in art while still maintaining a level of currency.<br />I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th<br />century academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".<br />What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new<br />students, a holy grail.<br />It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more<br />important than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur<br />grant cuts no ice with them.<br />It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?<br />The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students<br />is very hard to overcome.<br />What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them.<br />I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is<br />overwhelming arts instructors at every major college and University.<br />Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I<br />am right.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />I should add, that in a consumaer driven education system, there is push<br />from many directions to "connect with the student". This comes at great<br />cost.<br />One of our profs, showed the students Sid Meier's video to make a<br />connection.They were very impressed.<br />This validation from the mainstream media creates division.<br />In the eyes of most new art students, validation from Pixar, ILM, EAE<br />sports, and Blizzard, overwhelms validation from their parents brick and<br />mortar institutions such as MOMA SFMOMA etc..And generations divide the<br />art world.<br />If the majority choose the former, then undergound may become, buried<br />under the ground. Soon forgotten.<br />Watch your relavence,<br />It can kill you.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />and we should be surprised that a generation (now entering Art School)<br />exposed to digital art in games, movies and the web from the time they<br />were 5 years old has a different understanding for the meaning of the word<br />"Art"?<br />and we should be surprised that they trust Pixar, and distrust the older<br />generations institutions and philosophies? And why is Pixar less<br />trustworthy than older institutions (Universities, Museums, Galleries) <br />which also promote political, economic and cultural agendas that are<br />equally suspect?<br />Well of course, what a surprise!<br />They don't like the way things work.<br /><br />+Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:+<br /><br />i think you're onto something important. we may feel work x is more "Art"<br />than Pixar. But isn't it a little like granny saying rock-n-roll isn't<br />REAL music like sinatra or lawrence welk. rap could easily be seen as a<br />pop culture shift, commercially motivated, etc too. but even we would<br />never argue it isn't art. why would pixar be any different?<br /><br />good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but<br />remember, the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door. People<br />who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority. This show'll probably<br />end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring in nearly the traffic but<br />we find more Artistic. and i'm sure their funding hinges on traffic not<br />just ticket price.<br /><br />in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5<br />parts/instruments. By (pre-50's) jazz and classical standards, calling<br />this "music" is a joke. but what changed had nothing to do with that<br />criteria and much more to do with hair cuts. Pixar may not be as<br />impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but probably if we feel that<br />way, we are surely looking at the wrong element(s).<br /><br />- judsoN<br /><br />+manik <manik@ptt.yu> replied:+<br /><br />Geert Dekers send this link few days ago:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html">http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html</a><br />We were inspired to wrote something about that,but "link" is so funny and<br />grotesque,we let it past with other dilettante invention(link,not Geert's<br />choice)…We thought some student of art history will be hit by unusual<br />quantity of nonsense,favor of American artist(especially in XXI century<br />art-mostly unknown),but there's no Jeff Koons,there's no New British<br />sculpture R.Deacon,A.Kapoor…Russian Actionist-Kulik,Brener,one of<br />funniest performer on the world(with Paul McCartney)Marina<br />Abramovich,Russian avant-garde's without Rodchenko(he made first<br />monochrome 1912,see Pontus Hulten book about XX century art),Byzantine art<br />is completely without Serbian fresco painting,it's focused on Greek and<br />Russian…etc.List is very long and sad,but that's only parts we examine<br />(just have no time for handicraft product like that).But,always some but<br />make us to come out repeating same story about paravane art,about,now not<br />so hidden, games around&in 'world of<br />art"…garrulousness,boring,minimalist repeating of few decisive fact in<br />contemporary art streaming.<br /><br />If we study problem of exhibition policy in one of greatest museum like<br />MoMA as a represent(one of) most powerful art institution in the world we<br />study politics in USA in generally,and we shall see farther politics<br />of"Main Subject"(term by J,Habermas)of The World,yes cowboy,I see your<br />modest smile-USA again!Our experience with museums is extreme bad;out of<br />current fight for power(which is immanent political) and everything which<br />goes with that:money for survive before all(in this processes art is only<br />mediator,something from second plan,important but not decisive)we were<br />witness of events,similar to happening in MoMA(everything's reflection of<br />"Main Subject"even in distortion,invalid, without glamour and poor(small<br />shit is still shit?).<br /><br />Not to strong(structurally) for open fight against art(it's hard to find<br />substitute) ,for open take over field which still laying under<br />'mystic'protect of beauty and sense(art),museums and their<br />stuff(bureaucracy) used to make kind of inside subversion against works<br />which doesn't fit in main political (global) projection well enough,but<br />make something what "we"and "they"still called aesthetic("cultural<br />product"term by R.Myers).Institutional acknowledgment is first step toward<br />wide public.Wide public's ruling class(race) and they,in last instance fix<br />order in art.To be warm accepted from this class and besides be good<br />artist(like Mathew Barney)is wining combination.That's how actualize<br />became Myth,almost indestructible culture creation,and far more how Myth<br />became obstacle and how this mythologized discourse became discourse of<br />ruling class before skip over and became empty speech which keep world in<br />unchangeable state.<br /><br /> Last decade is mark by "neo-nato"art,taking space(of art)by force<br />(USA),everything wrapping in futile mythologeme about<br />liberalism,globalism and open borders which is shameless lie<br />ever.Democracy is very slow system incapable to adapt one's behavior<br />to fast changes.Most of art,theory and discourse glow like dead<br />star.Today's effort to understand complex problem of art and position<br />of this "cultural product"depend of timely reaction and merciless<br />point to possible solution out of clumsy institution.<br />MANIK<br /><br />+miklos@sympatico.ca <miklos@sympatico.ca> commented:+<br /><br />To stir a hornest's nest<br /><br />most of the email on raw talks about code<br />but isn't content the issue?<br /><br />It seems intellectual activity has been the 'darling' of the arts these<br />last thirty years; and yes it's impressive what thought,<br />systems, machines can do, but the fault and weakness of the intellect is<br />it's limitation based on knowledge, which is always and by<br />definition selective according to one's agenda. This last part, hidden<br />motivators, is normally with good reason left unexamined.<br /><br />I've always thought the popularity of much conceptual and digital artwork<br />due not so much to content but rather to it's mimmicry of<br />other more powerful and effective social systems (surveillance, database,<br />etc.); by appropriating the form it seems to appropriate<br />their effectiveness and so reassures the art world that we're on track,<br />not being left out of contemporary scientific developments.<br />–<br /><br />Miklos Legrady<br />310 Bathurst st.<br />Toronto ON.<br />M5T 2S3<br />416-203-1846<br />647-292-1846<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mikidot.com">http://www.mikidot.com</a><br /><br />+Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> replied:+<br /><br />Hi Miklos,<br /><br />What I want to read is a binary poem as though the medium were transformed<br />to imagination's space, and the poem, whether of words or more recently<br />digital glyphs, became proof, of sorts, that it was a truly human<br />extension of the mind and our quandry, though artifice. The idea was to<br />make it fully human, not literally, but figuratively, fully human as a<br />figure of speech. So that an artificial intelligence is a figure of speech<br />or code, or writing, and its life, as art, is the life of art, which is<br />figurative yet as lively as can be. Similarly, the life in artificial<br />life, as art, is not artificial life, or even life, but the life of art,<br />which is not about algorithms and whatnot but how lively it is not so much<br />as entertainment but as profoundly human creation, realization,<br />recognition, acknowledgement, third eye of apprehension…<br /><br />To take a medium and turn it into a part of the brain and senses, a part<br />of how we think and feel, like print is, or like cinema is, by now, is at<br />least to have a feeling for its full capacity like we do with our bodies<br />when we are young and our (stranger and stranger) minds, as we age. The<br />full capacity of this media/um is hardly yet plumbed, but I would like to<br />read/experience such a poem plumb, pick it off the net-tree.<br /><br />Knowledge is involved in this, and so is code, but it isn't the goal. Code<br />can be fetishized and so can knowledge, as though these were the goals.<br />But really it's giving this media/um the life of art that we're out to<br />achieve as artists, isn't it? And that's a matter of putting it all<br />together. The intellectual, the emotional, the technical, the creative…<br /><br />ja<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com">http://vispo.com</a><br /><br />ps: Have really been enjoying the "NYT art critic reviews Pixar<br />exhibition at MoMA" thread. In a sense, this is part of that thread, it<br />seems. And sorry for the poemy post. Couldn't help it.<br /><br />+patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> replied:+<br /><br />I have to leave for Break soon, but I'm off on this one.<br /><br />>We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little<br />like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or<br />lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,<br />commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it<br />isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?<br /><br />Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple<br />cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the<br />opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing what<br />they already believe and to kill their individuality. There are<br />pieces that are just as technically masterful which are great art video.<br />Chris Cunningham, Michel Gondry, Chris Landreth<br />(<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/ryan-the-special-edition.shtml">http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/ryan-the-special-edition.shtml</a>)<br />vs. Pixar/Dreamworks/Square/ENIX. Murakami vs. Sailor Moon.<br /><br />>good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but<br />remember, >the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door.<br /><br />Not an excuse for an institution like the MoMA, IMO. They can do better<br />than this. There are far more worthy candidates that could get bucks.<br /><br />>People who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority.<br /><br />Is that the best argument, given the venue/context?<br /><br />>This show'll probably end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring<br />in >nearly the traffic but we find more Artistic.<br /><br />That's a really seductive argument, and IMO, an excuse for doing more<br />unchallenging 'popular' shows to finance the 'unpopular' ones. I think<br />that it's necessary to try to do the risky route - the challenging<br />'popular' show. I had to wait 4 weeks to get the "Little Boy" catalogue<br />from the Japan Society because of the backlog.<br /><br />>in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5<br />>parts/instruments.<br /><br />But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the<br />Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three<br />minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so.<br />That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it was<br />beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique. It fell short and had<br />a completely predictable storyline.<br /><br />Honestly, Tron was better, and still is. I would probably ague to elevate<br />that movie to an art status, because of the profound effect that was born<br />from the exceptional vision it had.<br /><br />>Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but<br />>probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong<br />element(s).<br /><br />If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This<br />sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and<br />magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the MoMA.<br /><br />+Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:+<br /><br />On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:53 AM, patrick lichty wrote:<br /><br />>> We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little<br />like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or<br />lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,<br />commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it<br />isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?<br /><br />> Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple<br />cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the<br />opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing what<br />they already believe and to kill their individuality.<br /><br />haha did you think elvis or the beatles would have been hits without all<br />those screaming teenage girls thinking they were cute and cuddly? pixar<br />does upset the apple cart of feature animation. the simpsons is now<br />mainstream, but it's still anti-disney.<br /><br />there is nothing too innovative in Toy Story (much less TS2 and both got<br />Prix Ars). But Monsters Inc really is innovative (like sesame street was<br />long ago). I think Shrek was pixar too? anyway, nickelodeon started the<br />ball rolling, but then you might as well argue if bracht or picasso<br />deserve kudos for "cubism".<br />>> in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5<br />parts/instruments.<br /><br />> But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the<br />Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three<br />minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so.<br />That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it<br />was beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique.<br /><br />not that more chords IS better music, but that there was a time when A.<br />the technical complexity was paramount, the cultural effects went<br />un-noticed until long after it had a profound effect B. no one thought <br />R&R was impressive given the then current criteria. it's always too easy<br />to project our current ideas , in retrospect, onto what was at one time<br />new and judgment unsettled.<br /><br />the ramones are anti-beatles. joey's perspective is not paul's (back when<br />he wore a leather jacket too. but our generation (loosely defined fourth<br />wave of net artists?) has to acknowledge the difference in attitudes. or<br />be left behind in a nostalgic dust cloud.<br /><br />it's easier to see now it was a change of fashions, know where to look. <br />we are using old criteria and not looking at what will probably seem<br />inescapably obvious ten years from now. folks will have a hard time NOT<br />seeing it, like now we think anti-establishment means anti-corporate or<br />anti-fashion.<br />>> Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but<br />probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong<br />element(s).<br /><br />> If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This<br />sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and<br />magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the<br />MoMA.<br /><br />not at all. if the kids are psyched about it, perhaps we're missing<br />something. (even if it's not exactly what those same kids see) the MoMA<br />may have picked up on it, but more likely it's just a sellout. who cares<br />either way.<br /><br />in fact, it would sound as if many people here are being let down by their<br />faith in looking to the MoMA for integrity and leadership. too bad. we<br />are all hit and miss. and the older the institution, the more likely it<br />is to miss. but everyone hits once in a while.<br />+napier <napier@potatoland.org> replied:+<br /><br />At 07:53 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:<br />> >We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little<br />>like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or<br />>lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,<br />>commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it<br />>isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?<br />><br />>Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple<br />>cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the<br />>opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing<br />>what they already believe and to kill their individuality.<br /><br />I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He<br />paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of<br />an all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into<br />reinforcing what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most<br />powerful institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And<br />technical mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly<br />the same story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.<br /><br />Although I suppose you could say the Sistine Chapel was a secretive homage<br />to homosexuality. After all God is super buff, and Adam looks like he<br />could use a pick-me-up. And that finger touch gesture could raise an<br />eyebrow or two.<br /><br />Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work and<br />art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was<br />considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art<br />because it has endured beyond it's original context.<br /><br />mark<br />+patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> replied:+<br /><br />Napier Wrote:<br /><br />I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He<br />paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of<br />an all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into<br />reinforcing what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most<br />powerful institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And<br />technical mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly<br />the same story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.<br /><br />…<br /><br />Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work and<br />art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was<br />considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art<br />because it has endured beyond it's original context.<br /><br />Mark,<br />Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time had<br />totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are a<br />totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. Both were<br />commercial. However, the nature of the culture of the time and the<br />contextual functions of the given art in the given institution is quite<br />different (or so I think; I'm always open to discussion).<br /><br />Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If<br />that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.<br />+Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> replied:+<br /><br />On 17 Dec 2005, at 12:53, patrick lichty wrote:<br /><br />> Honestly, Tron was better, and still is.<br /><br />This is a very interesting argument and one that I do agree with. It's not<br />just nostalgia. I have just bought the deluxe Tron DVD and the thing that<br />strikes me about it is the technical incompetences and intellectual<br />failures of the project *that make it an aesthetic and<br />critical (discursive) success*.<br /><br />If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script is<br />nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film<br />production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents very<br />successfully as a finished work.<br /><br />Tron is problematic and carries a high risk of failure yet is an aesthetic<br />and contentual (to make up a word) success. Is this Bourriaud's<br />realisation of new technical content in an old medium? Well, no. Both<br />backlit animation and computer graphics were rocket science at the time.<br /><br />And Tron was also much harder work than a Pixar movie. The backlit<br />animation was hand-painted and hand-composited onto film stock specially<br />manufactured by Kodak just for that film. The computer animation was<br />rendered a frame at a time by animators keying hundreds<br />of numbers into a teletype connected to a server over a phone line. By<br />four different companies with incompatible software (some were CSG based,<br />some mesh-based, and so on).<br /><br />I like "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc", and I think it is wrong to discount<br />the creativity of the individuals that worked on those<br />projects in favor of grant-funded discourse illustrators.<br /><br />My pitch to students seduced by the surfaces of what Pixar does would be<br />this:<br /><br />Yeah it looks good. Now imagine making *art* with those tools.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.renderman.org/">http://www.renderman.org/</a><br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> posted:+<br /><br />My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night, and I<br />thought more about this converstation.<br /><br />The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be people who<br />create someone else's vision.<br /><br />This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an artist is<br />about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about realizing<br />someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the<br />artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference between<br />being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of realization.<br /><br />One requires a lot more thought than the other.<br /><br />In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to know to<br />get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.<br />Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the<br />pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the kids<br />that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market pressures,<br />or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line conscious<br />corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for any number of<br />reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from global labor<br />pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term, in tems of the<br />students.<br /><br />Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can start<br />getting experience so they can rise to the point where they can<br />have creative freedom.<br /><br />I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you going<br />to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and<br />realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no sense<br />to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical<br />school?<br /><br />Therefore:<br />The dream of Pixar:<br />1: Short-term<br />2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash<br />3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media that<br />judges its merit on market success)<br />4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,<br />5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media production<br />paradigm.<br />6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /discourages<br />thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.<br />7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is driven by the<br />industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still have to have<br />the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also extremely hard to<br />pass.<br /><br />It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to think,<br />when they might actually find it easier to do so.<br /><br />Pick your poison.<br /><br />I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.<br /><br />+mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com> replied:+<br />i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging themselves. <br />it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the frustrations i have as a<br />teacher, and sad to see that the pixar flu is an epidemic (one would like<br />to think that it's only at one's own school and the grass is somehow<br />greener, or a little less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do<br />think that it is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high<br />and low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is<br />tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick commenting<br />on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why it might not be in<br />the student's best interest (regardless of the hype) to even think twice<br />about working as a human machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact<br />is that many art students don't care about being artists and much of my<br />time in the classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists. <br />hence, the frustration.<br /><br />mark<br />+Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+<br /><br />I've been thinking long and hard about this thread. There are a few things<br />that I'm having a hard time with. It feels a bit like anyone who was<br />disappointed in the Guggenheim for the Armani exhibit (I was), should be<br />disappointed with this exhibit. It's basically the same thing, right? But<br />there's still something about that line of thought that doesn't sound<br />right. I like the idea of "Visual Culture" as opposed to "Visual Art".<br />But I think the thing was that Armani isn't exactly about "Visual<br />Culture", even. It's about "Consumer Culture". I mean, if someone's<br />wearing an Armani (and you're into that sort of thing), does it really<br />matter what it looks like? I've never been to the MoMA and don't know much<br />about it. I don't feel, as an artist, that a PIXAR exhibit there is like<br />the Easter Bunny showing up at my Christmas party. More like a Bob Ross<br />showing up at my opening. He doesn't appear out of place, but he doesn't<br />really add much either. I'm still thinking about this.<br /><br />Pall<br /><br />–<br />Pall Thayer<br />p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.this.is/pallit">http://www.this.is/pallit</a><br />+Gregory Little <glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu> replied:+<br /><br />can't resist jumping in here, as this "master" has also been "unshackled",<br />but not so much from the "polishing" process of his MFA<br />candidates ;)…..(FYI it is interesting to have at least one who<br />perceives himself as a "gem", another word that comes to my mind is<br />"pill", LOL)…..I feel happily more unshacked from administrivia and<br />amateur psychology…<br /><br />However, what patrick sez is IMO correct, we in digital arts at Bowling<br />Green State University have built what was at one point a year or two ago<br />a BFA program with over 270 majors in digital art…built entirely on the<br />desire of a generation of kids to do the Pixar thing…with 60% of the<br />faculty in digital and 100% in the school of art finding the pixar<br />industry thing to be NOTART, actually dangerous and corrosive of (A)rt. A<br />very conflicted situation, as I benefited from a zeitgeist that I found<br />somewhat evil…so the strategy became to subvert..we will get them into<br />the program and reprogram them, expose them to "real" art, as most of them<br />have not really seen "realart", as it is not on television often, and turn<br />around their motivations; or at least put thinking critical, even tactical<br />minds into industry to potentially change it…… I have since found the<br />strategy to be largely ineffective. I have concluded that most of the<br />students have no desire to make discursive work, they have nothing really<br />to contextualize or express, they just like the work and want to see their<br />names on the big screen, and simply what to be a part of something<br />powerful with a large audience…I am seeing the work, 3d animation that<br />is, in the context of other functional or decorative arts like jewelry,<br />pottery, etc. Now the same thing is happening with the gaming meme, which<br />will likely be the next MOMA-like exhibition.<br /><br />However, the question that comes to mind for me is this–as some have<br />observed the effect of a museum show on a genre, for example netart in the<br />Whitney being the "death" of netart, what is the effect of Pixar at the<br />moma?<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />"seduce audiences into<br />>reinforcing<br />>what they already believe"<br /><br />Regardless of whether you are Agnostic, aetheist, baptist or buddhist,<br />Mich's painting does deal with some fairly massive, inter-religious<br />questions, without answering them in a simplistic way, ie goodguysbadguys….<br /><br />And, on an aesthetic level Pixar owes a massive debt to Mikie (using Mikie<br />as a representative)…there is certainly nothing "aesthetically"<br />groundbreaking about the incredibles.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />>If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script<br />>is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film<br />>production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents<br />>very successfully as a finished work.<br /><br />Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating.<br />PLichty discovered the other day during a class where I had tron playing<br />as background ambience, that polygonal modeling was first developed during<br />the making of tron.<br /><br />However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development of<br />a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality.<br /><br />So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic, it is<br />as if cubism, futurism, duchamp, etc etc etc never happened–for obvious<br />reasons.<br /><br />+Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> replied:+<br /><br />> Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating.<br /><br />The two-disk DVD set has lots of documentaries and preparatory work on the<br />second DVD, which goes into all the making and design in<br />detail. I do recommend it.<br /><br />> However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development<br />> of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality.<br /><br />Yes, it's a wonderful aesthetic solution to a social problem (the impact<br />of computer technology). Very Adorno. :-)<br /><br />> So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic,<br />> it is<br />> as if cubism,<br /><br />[Mr. Potato Head rearranges his facial features crazily]<br />Mr. Potato Head: Hey, Hamm. Look, I'm Picasso.<br />Hamm: I don't get it.<br />Mr. Potato Head: You uncultured swine.<br /><br />> futurism,<br /><br />I'd wanted to do a futurist CG movie for ten years now. You could use a<br />modified voxel system to get that vortex effect.<br /><br />> duchamp, etc etc etc never happened–for obvious<br />> reasons.<br /><br />Imagine a Pixar Duchamp movie. Perhaps it was "Geris Game"? :-)<br />+napier <napier@potatoland.org> replied:+<br /><br />At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:<br />>Mark,<br />>Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time<br />>had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are<br />>a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA.<br />>…….<br />><br />>Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If<br />>that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.<br /><br />These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part<br />of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not<br />that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400.<br /><br />Power is distributed differently now so it's hard to compare directly. <br />Paradigms are different but I don't see the differences as that great. <br />The Sistine Chapel was arguably the most advanced rendering of it's time,<br />and told a popular story in visual terms that anybody could follow. It was<br />placed in a public space. This isn't Pollack. It's much closer to Star<br />Wars.<br /><br />Granted, MoMA is supposed to be about Pollack, not the Sistine Chapel, but<br />it wouldn't be the first time in history that these categories have<br />changed.<br /><br />mark<br /><br />+T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> replied:+<br /><br />responding inline:<br />On 12/17/05, napier <napier@potatoland.org> wrote:<br />> At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:<br />> >Mark,<br />> >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time<br />> >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are<br />> >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA.<br />> >…….<br />> ><br />> >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If<br />> >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.<br />><br />> These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part<br />> of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not<br />> that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400.<br /><br />The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century<br />Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture – they<br />gave the pope his power and authority because people *believed* them. Or<br />at least pretended too, but the cultural and social effect is the<br />same. There is so much different culturally, economically and politically<br />from today to the renaissance that I find the comparison of the<br />Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to<br />contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of<br />worthlessness.<br /><br />Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist and<br />tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol that<br />isn't were it's greatness lies. The argument becomes then, is there a<br />sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from<br />entertainments to a sort of greatness? Mark, I know as a Dad you'd<br />probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments<br />they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of the<br />TV, but do you see anything great in them? Your current work, when<br />compared to a Pixar movie on a formal or technical level, is absurdly<br />simple, yet, it's impact on an intellectual and emotional level is, IMHO,<br />much greater. And that's because you're an artist and they are merely<br />entertainers.<br />+napier <napier@potatoland.org> replied:+<br /><br />>The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century<br />>Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture<br /><br />Yes it's hard to beat the power of religious belief. But I don't mean<br />'popular' as 'likable'. I mean these are stories held and believed by the<br />broad population, that had a deep formative impact on society. For the US<br />a common word is "freedom" which is a recurring story/belief/myth in our<br />culture. That story is told by Bush in his speeches, and also by Lucas<br />through the Star Wars series. "Freedom" is to the US(2005) what "faith"<br />was to the church(1400).<br /><br />>I find the comparison of the<br />>Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to<br />>contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of<br />>worthlessness.<br /><br />How about the comparison of Michaelangelo to Pollack? As a painter I find<br />that one a much longer stretch.<br /><br />>Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist<br />>and tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol<br />>that isn't were it's greatness lies.<br /><br />We've had a lot of time to discover the greatness of Mich's work. And now<br />the context of his work is "art" when at the time he was essentially a<br />commercial artist.<br /><br />>The argument becomes then, is<br />>there a sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from<br />>entertainments to a sort of greatness?<br /><br />Probably not with Pixar, and I can relate to Patrick's upset about Pixar<br />in MoMA. Maybe I'm switching topics here to talk about this in more<br />general terms. The general idea of a big budget popular movie being seen<br />as art is not only possible in the future, I'd say it's likely. Over time<br />people will forget the context and just remember whatever makes the<br />experience great. So Mich's work lasts and moves us today, and we call it<br />art, even though other work done in the same context is forgotten or<br />written off as just craft.<br /><br />>Mark, I know as a Dad you'd<br />>probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments<br />>they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of<br />>the TV, but do you see anything great in them?<br /><br />Maybe not Pixar. I would vote for Shrek 2 myself (Dreamworks).<br /><br />The point being that popular film can achieve this lasting "greatness",<br />and centuries from now no one will realize or care that it was part of a<br />cultural propaganda campaign. As Mich's work outlived it's context, so<br />can film (or other popular forms), and that will change the way these<br />things are categorized (ie. as art).<br /><br />mark<br />+Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> replied:+<br /><br />this thread has been very interesting. one thing that strikes me as odd<br />about it is that the thread, like so many others, is phrased in terms of<br />the NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional bodies. as<br />though it is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does not<br />contain discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do<br />determine what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.<br /><br />+Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+<br /><br />if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.<br /><br />but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture or<br />cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV programs,<br />books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more egalitarian<br />and less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and<br />mythologies, and get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would<br />have us believe.<br /><br />Zev<br />+Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> replied:+<br /><br />> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.<br /><br />as silent as a mirror is believed, realities plunge in silence by.<br /><br />i think it can't be helped only in interzones 5, 37b, and 45.<br /><br />and of course it would be particularly tough in ny.<br />+Dirk Vekemans <dv@vilt.net> replied:+<br /><br />Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never heard of or<br />seen a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of assumptions and<br />mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still moderately priced<br />would you please wrap it up and send it over so i can give it to myself<br />for xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally<br />through with all the art nonsense…<br />Thanks,<br />dv<br />+Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+<br /><br />no, not a mystic, thanks for asking, tho. an artist of sorts, maybe. you<br />may be right that all values are bubbling with assumptions and<br />mythologies, but I hope that you're wrong in saying that they are all<br />abusive bubbles. could some bubbles not be anti-abusive?<br /><br />and if you are wrong, then sets are still available, but you'll have to<br />make it yourself.<br /><br />merry xmas, happy holidays.<br /><br />Zev<br />+Dirk Vekemans <dv@vilt.net> replied:+<br /><br /> anti-abusive bubbles would be anti-bubble denouncing their bubbleness<br />when inflated. some recent neoist negative constructs would qualify i<br />suppose, but Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite already had some apophatic<br />bubbles floating around in the 5th century. That's why i was wondering,<br />jokingly. Otherwise values bubble abusively because they only contain<br />recursive ideosynchronised instances of the bubble they are floating in<br />and can thus only abuse their surroundings by enforcing their meaning on<br />them. Art is aggressive, most noticably when shown in institutions that<br />allegedly promote art, but any art is de facto, by claiming itself to be<br />art, abusive to other bubbles, just like Bush brings freedom to Irak.<br /><br />What you proposed sounded like reducing all art production to material<br />objects of culture, which to me is the same as negating art, denying the<br />activity itself, saying it never happened and that all the art garbage you<br />can find in museums just miraculously materialised, claiming what we're<br />all working on here is the mere production of sellable objects that can<br />only be promoted through market strategies. Now i see you have some very<br />nice paintings over at your site, i don't think you'd consider those to be<br />merely sellable objects, otherwise you could have suffised with running a<br />webshop selling acrylic paint in profitable portions. The activity is not<br />abusive, and if you want the anti-abusive: there it is/was happening.<br />While art happens, it outbubbles itself autopoetically.<br /><br />All this rhetoric, discussions like these, although they tend to get<br />tedious because they're just bubbles within bubbles, are inescapable. It's<br />part of the art of art. You can't escape them by saying they're not<br />(supposed to be)about art. And they have some importance: some big bubble<br />might explode any second, others might shower in offering the illusion of<br />an eternal fabric of foam while some slippery youngsters glide to their<br />7,5 minutes of fame. I think it's quite a spectacle seeing all these young<br />talents relishing in their creativity while producing in the service of<br />power institutions. Apparantly it's the choice of a part of a generation,<br />and you can't judge choices like that. But you can't attribute any other<br />value to them than what they proclaim themselves, within their industrial<br />power bubble, some iconic extra's perhaps or a few subversive gags from<br />within the system approved and nullified by the system, but not much more<br />without being insultingly aggressive to us very sanguine poetic worms<br />stuck in the frozen root of oblivion.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />+Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+<br /><br />actually, I agree with most of what you say, and I'm not trying to reduce<br />art production nor negate art's existence, just that changing terms around<br />helps see things a bit differently, situates art in a wider cultural<br />context, and avoids the narrow definitions of art that are prevalent and<br />often self serving in the art world. But some historians and critics have<br />done this while still using the word art.<br /><br />[….]<br /><br />pixar has a long line of enjoyable and entertaining, and witty and clever,<br />works that have stood multiple viewings (with my kids). Many things that I<br />have seen in galleries and museums and cinemas under the banner of art are<br />none of the above.<br /><br />should museums be showing works that are easily accessable elsewhere?<br />Preferably not, but then should they be hosting fashion exhibitions and be<br />charging 20 dollars to get in, following art world trends, be influenced<br />by commercial and financial considerations, etc, which are much bigger<br />issues, and like high and low art, never simple nor clear cut.<br /><br />Art (and artist) are terms that fluctuate culturally and historically,<br />mean different things ad have different values at different times. One<br />could look at artists (Giotto, Reubens, Warhol) also as working for<br />someone else's profits and power (whatever the personal gains that they<br />made), and also look at the art world's mythology of success, and why it<br />might not be in the student's best interest to buy into it, and also look<br />into the art world's mythologies of high and low art.<br /><br />There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that<br />is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be<br />contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical<br />knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time….<br /><br />just my 2 cents worth.<br />+Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+<br /><br />> There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and<br />> if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe<br />> they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or<br />> gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive<br />> on their own time….<br /><br />Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something that<br />you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a<br />hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but being<br />an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not<br />going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar. Sure,<br />if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself<br />into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art<br />practice on the side.<br /><br />> just my 2 cents worth.<br /><br />Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.<br />+<joy.garnett@gmail.com> replied:+<br /><br />With all due respect Pall, et al.:<br /><br />As far as I know, being a fully engaged "devoted artist" requires working<br />and juggling a full-time job – most anywhere, but certainly here in the<br />NYC coffee-grinder, aka "art market central" (with the notable exceptions<br />of trust-fund babies and blue-chippers). There are zillions of artists who<br />live this crazy struggle out of neccessity without making a tenth of what<br />we would if we worked for Pixar.<br /><br />Much of the discussion here (with a few exceptions such as Zev's post)<br />waxes nostalgic for an avant garde that hasn't existed in yonks… I'd say<br />the stuff to toss out are the trite "starving artist" clichés and those<br />stale post-modern (ie: "dead") moralistic orthodoxies of "hi-lo"<br />culture… okay, back to work; wake me when it's over.<br />+Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> replied:+<br /><br />I never said it was a hobby.<br /><br />so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of their<br />art to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/or are<br />wealthy enough not to have to, are artists?<br /><br />I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people working<br />full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own time. Primo Levi<br />worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the weekends. Andy Warhol was<br />an illustrator.<br /><br />I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the early<br />eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by your own<br />definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an artist? nor are<br />any of the other staff<br /><br />I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years, but<br />have played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of stress, and<br />wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.<br /><br />all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less "art" than<br />a lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a necessary motto is these<br />intolerant times, whether that means zilch to you or not.<br /><br />[….]<br />+Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:+<br /><br />actually, i thought this post seemed extremely reasonable. not at all<br />unrealistic. and a helpful attitude.<br /><br />being an artist, making (and certainly losing a lot of) money at it, it<br />would be tempting to say it was a "career". it is just a fact that there<br />is only an illusion (at least in the US) of there being a "career<br />artists". the chelsea gallery scene and broadway theaters are among the<br />few places on earth that are art for profit. depending where you draw the<br />line, pixar is one of the others. only a handful of choreographers out of<br />the millions could actually live off dance. we don't teach in our spare<br />time, we teach to eat and if there is time left to us, we CHOOSE to make<br />creative things.<br /><br />kids out of school, don't have nearly the pressure to earn, so art is a<br />more viable option. or there are some who max out their credit cards, pay<br />with more than they have. they may think art is a career, but see this is<br />not a long term situation. the "i will spend anything i need to further my<br />career" attitude is completely common, but eventually self-destructive.<br /><br />for the vast vast majority art as a career is just not realistic. it's an<br />activity one can toss expendable cash at (and doing so is absolutely fine,<br />beats drugs. some collect and learn to maintain antique cars, some become<br />gourmets, study in Italy and keep an impressive wine seller. everyone<br />wants to be an expert/brilliant.).<br /><br />yeah it probably will piss people off to even try to burst that bubble,<br />but bubbles are the abusive boyfriend of the art scene. whether they are<br />good deep down or not, for our own safety, we gotta get out of there. no<br />one likes it in the short term, but sometimes medicine just tastes bad. <br />there are things to fix and getting rid of these grand illusions is the<br />first step. [….]<br />+ Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> replied:+<br /><br />On 19.12.2005, at 11:11, Zev Robinson wrote:<br /><br />> I never said it was a hobby.<br /><br />No, you didn't but you did say that people can "do something hip and<br />subversive on their own time".<br />><br />> so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of<br />> their art to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/<br />> or are wealthy enough not to have to, are artists?<br /><br />I didn't say anything about selling art. I was just talking about<br />making art. I didn't even suggest in the mildest sense that an artist<br />can live off their art. I even said that artists may have to hold<br />down a job on the side to pay the bills.<br />><br />> I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people<br />> working full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own<br />> time. Primo Levi worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the<br />> weekends. Andy Warhol was an illustrator.<br /><br />There are always exceptions to everything.<br />><br />> I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the<br />> early eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by<br />> your own definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an<br />> artist? nor are any of the other staff<br /><br />I'm a student but in regards to a personal art practice, you can't compare<br />being an art professor to being an animator at Pixar. I think<br />that most universities require that their professors maintain a personal<br />art practice. It's part of the job. What I'm talking about is the frame of<br />mind. You can work a full-time job and still maintain a view that it is<br />the "on the side" thing. I was doing it for seven years before I decided<br />to go back to school. I'm happy when my art practice manages to pull in a<br />couple of dollars but I can't count on it, so I'm an artist with a job on<br />the side to pay the bills. But some jobs are better for this than others.<br />A couple of years I turned down a job that would have meant a hefty salary<br />boost but I when I realized how much it would interefere with my art, I<br />had to turn it down.<br />> I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years,<br />> but have played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of<br />> stress, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.<br />><br />> all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less<br />> "art" than a lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a<br />> necessary motto is these intolerant times, whether that means zilch<br />> to you or not.<br /><br />I think if we try to tell young undergraduate art students who are<br />interested in an art practice that, "Sure, you should try to get a<br />job with Pixar and then you can make your art in your spare time" it's a<br />bit misleading. Because most people I know who have gone into<br />that type of work don't have time for a meaningful art practice. [….]<br />+Bosah Pneumatic <bosahgnos@yahoo.co.uk> replied:+<br /><br /> I understand, and in a large part relate to the thread starters concerns.<br />However, as many have pointed out, art rarely pays the bills. The reality<br />is most art students I've met recently are looking for jobs in<br />advertising, frankly I think a career at Pixar is preferable to that<br />ambition ;). yep, blah, blah, number of genuine 'career artists' is small<br />etc, etc. Thing is I think its very important to point out how CG art is<br />different to other mediums at the moment. Most mediums require some<br />technical skill; from sculpture, painting to video art. Technique though<br />is not art, obviously. What I would be interested to know is how much of<br />the technical aspect you all would consider to be the art, personally I<br />don't think any of it is, it is a given to me. This is not the attitude<br />of most people working in CG however.<br /><br />All art has an element of problem solving to to it, there are technical<br />problems the artist has to solve to achieve! the expression/aesthetic art<br />they want, and solving these can be a rewarding intellectual challenge.<br />They aren't important to the audience, and don't contribute to the<br />artistic weight. Not so with conceptual art, which on the whole can be<br />seen as transferring these problems to somebody else to solve. Which could<br />be seen as actually subsuming the artist to being merely the same as a<br />middle manager in and advertising company passing on their vision to a<br />bunch of creatives to realise, or in extremis passing it on to the<br />audience to work out.<br /><br />CG is highly technical, everything needs working out, and everything<br />requires technical knowledge above and beyond artistic ability. The models<br />(polygon, nurbs or SubDs, topology decisions), the materials (properties,<br />methods, displacements), the way it renders (illumination approaches,<br />layered passes, compositing), the lights, the (virtual) camera lens, the<br />rig on the models, the animation methods etc, etc. As a resul! t in a<br />company like pixar everything is demarcated (sp?), and seriously so too.<br />Modellers, texture artists, lighting artist, animators and a TD to oversee<br />the whole pipeline. You are just another cube dweller in a pipe to make<br />that shot. There is no other rational way of working. It's a job though,<br />it's a creative job, and it's all about problem solving. Is it an artists<br />job though ? Is the TD the artist or the modeller, or the guy who wrote<br />the script, or drew the storyboard or the etc… You get the idea. It's an<br />artistic collective, always. It's like working in any other creative<br />industry, even, advertising.<br /><br />Now, yep, there are a few CG artist who are technically good enough in all<br />areas of the CG pipeline to produce entire works by themselves. Takes a<br />hell of a lot longer, but can be done. It's not relevant though is it ?<br />What is though is the problem with how much technical knowledge is<br />required. This is why art schools have to spend the vast majority! of<br />their teaching time (in regards to CG) making sure the students have the<br />technical knowledge and very little on, for want of a better term,<br />artistic ability, or more accurately, the ability to SEE differently.. So,<br />therefore its not surprising that such students end up more concerned, and<br />turned on to, the problem solving side of the art and less about the<br />actual artistic message.<br /><br />CG is still an extremely young medium. There are some genuine artists in<br />CG with something to say, artists to whom the fact the work is realise in<br />CG is totally immaterial (and immaterial really to the audience). However,<br />I'm sick of seeing female nudes in fantasy settings, or arch viz of photo<br />realistic living rooms built with CG tools. But thats the way its going to<br />be for quite a few years yet. CG artists need jobs, and those kind of<br />images show off their technical ability, and it's the technical ability<br />(and the ability to fit into a pipeline) thats going to pay the ren! t.<br />Sure, the artists who are capable of unique visions and aesthetics get all<br />the props and are most sought after, but even they cannot afford to pick<br />and chose the work they do. Its always skills that pay the bills really.<br />It's no different to painters a couple of hundred years ago relying on<br />sponsors paying for portraits is it ? Nothing has changed, and CG is just<br />following the same paths that every other medium has. It does still<br />however have a problem over other mediums in that the technical knowledge<br />required to make a piece is a lot higher than other mediums. Trouble is,<br />if that changes, as in the tools get easier to use to speak, all of us<br />working in CG will start bitching about losing artistic control over our<br />creations and the software houses 'owning' our art.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the<br />New Museum of Contemporary Art.<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard<br />Foundation,  The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for<br />the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on<br />the Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Marisa Olson (marisa@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 10, number 51. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org<br />are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art<br />and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome<br />Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org.<br /><br />To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>.<br />Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the<br />Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />
