RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.18.06

discussion

Posted Aug. 17 2006 20:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.18.06

RHIZOME DIGEST: August 18, 2006 Content: +opportunity+ 1. gill@watershed.co.uk: Clark Bursary - UK Digital Art Award 2. info: Art Blog links at Furtherfield.org 3. Jeff Ritchie: CFP: International Digital Media and Arts Association Conference "Work in Progress/Rate of Change" (deadline:9/15/06; conference dates: 11/9/06-11/11/06) +announcement+ 4. Ignacio Nieto: <Up Dating, Art and Technology> 5. Ryan Griffis: Parking Public Beta Database 6. Mel Alexenberg: new book: the Future of Art in a Digital Age +thread+ 7. T.Whid, marc, ARN, Ryan Griffis, Jim Andrews, Pall Thayer: New media art shouldn't suck 8. marc, T.Whid, rob@robmyers.org, Jim Andrews, ARN, Patrick Tresset, bram, Lee Wells: Charlie puts NMA's down… + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities. Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell@Rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. From: gill@watershed.co.uk <gill@watershed.co.uk> Date: Aug 15, 2006 Subject: Clark Bursary - UK Digital Art Award Final call for proposals: Mon 4 Sept 2006 is the forthcoming deadline for applications for the Clark Bursary - 6th UK Digital Art Award. Initiated in 1998, the Bursary provides opportunities for creative development in digital media through a residency programme, and has built a reputation for innovation, development and quality. Watershed Media Centre and partners including Situations at the University of the West of England, are pleased to offer the award of ?17,500 enabling an exceptional UK artist working primarily in digital media, to develop their career and proposed idea/s through a supported residency at Watershed, Bristol UK. A new website is now online where you can find full guidelines and download an application form, please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dshed.net/clarkbursary">http://www.dshed.net/clarkbursary</a> The site features work by previous recipients and a studio space where this year's artist will document there development process. The Clark Bursary is funded by J A Clark Charitable Trust, Watershed, and Arts Council England South West. In association with the University of the West of England, Bristol. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. From: info <info@furtherfield.org> Date: Aug 17, 2006 Subject: Art Blog links at Furtherfield.org Art Blog links at Furtherfield.org We have been receiving and collecting links for Art Blogs on furtherfield for a little while now. And we thought that it might be a good idea to see who else is out there currently creating 'Art Blogs'. We are particularly interested in finding 'art blogs' that are created as 'art objects/pieces/works of art', and blogs observing, writing about net art & meda arts culture. Before sending, we advise you to check to see if you are not already on there and to see that your blog might belong elsewhere in another links section regarding its content and context. If you wish to submit an Art Blog, please do it via email using this email address - info@furtherfield.org Submission Format (example): title - The creative Nipper. info (about) - no more than 200 words. URL - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.artblogger.it">http://www.artblogger.it</a> Art blog links section: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.furtherfield.org/displaylinks.php?link_set=11">http://www.furtherfield.org/displaylinks.php?link_set=11</a> Thank you - Marc. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. From: Jeff Ritchie <ritchie@lvc.edu> Date: Aug 18, 2006 Subject: CFP: International Digital Media and Arts Association Conference "Work in Progress/Rate of Change" (deadline:9/15/06; conference dates: 11/9/06-11/11/06) November 2006 International Digital Media and Arts Association Conference "Work in Progress/Rate of Change" <a rel="nofollow" href="http://idmaa.org/idmaaNovember2006/">http://idmaa.org/idmaaNovember2006/</a> Call for Papers The fourth annual International Digital Media and Arts Association Conference seeks abstracts for papers that explore the reality of the constantly changing digital universe in which we live. This brave new world is a constant work in progress. Whereas the old reference point was the finishing of "something" (be it media object, art form, or business practice); now the issue is not completion, but rate of change. Nothing stands still. While this was always true, the evolution of the digital world we all live in has brought this into clear focus. The conference welcomes academics, artists, and industry representatives to participate in refereed paper presentations, panels, discussion workshops, gallery talks, performances, and hands-on tutorials. The conference will begin on November 9th and end on November 11th and will also include a juried exhibition and a vendor fair. This conference is hosted in San Diego, California by National University. The four main conference categories for the November 2006 iDMAa Conference are 1) Art/Design, 2) Business/Industry, 3) Education, and 4) Media/Games. The Conference seeks submissions of abstracts (500 words maximum) for presentation and discussion. All abstracts will be refereed for acceptance. Those works selected for the conference will then be reviewed for possible publication in _The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal_. Submissions will be for one of four main conference categories. Please send all submissions by September 15th, 2006 to: Aleksandra Vinokurova at Avinokurova_at_nu.edu Abstracts should be submitted for review as an attachment in either Microsoft Word or PDF format (please include your last name in the filename). Abstracts should include a cover letter indicating your preferred conference category and should follow standard academic paper formatting conventions. Participants are also encouraged to propose panels on topics of specific interest. Panel submissions should include a brief description of the panel topic and list of panelists (include a short vita for each panelist). Authors will be notified via email of acceptance by approximately September 30, 2006. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/hosting/">http://rhizome.org/hosting/</a> Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year. Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other plan, today! About BroadSpire BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans (prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June 2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. From: Ignacio Nieto <ignacio_nieto01@yahoo.es> Date: Aug 12, 2006 Subject: <Up Dating, Art and Technology> Dear friends and collaborators, TROYANO <Up Dating, Art and Technology > ………………………………………………….. A series of conferences that will aboard the limits between art and technology from the last expiriencies made by artists. The event is divided in two phases; <—///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -From 6 pm in the Centre Cultural of Spain of Santiago, Chile, during the days 17, 18 and 19 of August, will be boradcasted online to Espacio H located in the city of Cordoba, Argentine. These actvities will be part of the 8th Digital Days Works from Cordoba, Argentine. 2006 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////—> -Since the days 24th, 25th y 26th of August in the School of Arts in the city of Valparaiso, will be transimitted the 8th Digital Days Works from Cordoba, Argentine. PROGRAM…………………………………………………………………………………. Cultural Centre of Spain of Santiago, Chile _____________________________________________________________________ 17 of August / 18 - 21 hrs. -Igor Stromajer (sl) <Mobil Technology>: Wpack. -Marina Zerbarini (ar) <Bio Arte>: Heat, Vapor Humidity. Turner in the XXI cent. -Enrique Rivera (cl) <Technology and Politics: Cybernetic Synergy,Basis and Convergence betweenen Art + Science+ Technology in Chile _____________________________________________________________________ 18 of August / 18 - 21 hrs. -Dmitry Bulatov (ru) <Bio Art>: Third Modenization: Works of Techno- Biological Art Works - -José Miguel Tagle (cl) <Bio Art>: The Brain of the Chaman. Neurobiological Rersearch and Bioelectronic Instalations. -Mirko Petrovich (cl) <Technology and Politics>: Gesture Control in the Audiovisual Interactive Systems. _____________________________________________________________________ 19 of August / 18 - 21 hrs. -Angellique Waller (us) <Technology and Politics>: Ebay Longing -Eduardo Navas (sa-us) <Technology and Politics>: The Culture of Remix. The influence of the Break in DJ in the Ideology of the Repetition. -Marc Tutters (ca) <Mobil Technology>: Beyond the Locative Medias l———————– >more information www.t-r-o-y-a-n-o.cl + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. From: Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com> Date: Aug 13, 2006 Subject: Parking Public Beta Database The Temporary Travel Office is updating it's database of parking lots and utopias in order to create more flexible visualizations and analyses. We welcome new additions to our ongoing research archive from web- based visitors, as well as mobile participants. Data can be submitted in the form of voice recordings (via phone) and/or text and image uploads. As our research is specifically focused on the development of parking within the United States, we can only support US-based participation. To participate or just to see currently available data, point your browser to: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://temporarytraveloffice.net/hollywood/parking.html">http://temporarytraveloffice.net/hollywood/parking.html</a> Mobile participants should go to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://temporarytraveloffice.net/mobilecontent.html">http://temporarytraveloffice.net/mobilecontent.html</a> More about Parking Public: Parking Public is a research initiative documenting specific histories of parking lot development as it relates to the more general ideology of utopian capitalism. The initiative involves a three part process: 1) in situ research of parking lots including participatory walking tours 2) general public surveys of idiosyncratic notions of utopia in contrast to the structured mundane reality of auto parking 3) a proposal for a monument/memorial (nonument) to the 20th century parking lot in the United States. The Travel Office is conducting research in various cities and towns across the United States, as well as utilizing telecommunications technologies to document the interactions between local and networked spaces – immediate and distant desires. Visit the Temporary Travel Office online <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.temporarytraveloffice.net">http://www.temporarytraveloffice.net</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. From: Mel Alexenberg <melalexenberg@yahoo.com> Date: Aug 17, 2006 Subject: new book: the Future of Art in a Digital Age Dear Rhizomers, As fellow explorers at the intersections of art, science, technology, and consciousness, I am sure you will enjoy my new book discused by our colleagues below. The Future of Art in a Digital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness By Mel Alexenberg Published by Intellect Books, 2006 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/ppbooks.php?isbn=1841501360">http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/ppbooks.php?isbn=1841501360</a> In his book, Mel Alexenberg navigates his artistic insight amid the labyrinthian complexities, explosions, and revolutions of the past forty years of art, tracing his way amid questions of science and religion, technology and environment, education, culture, and cosmos. Everyone will find his book full of new vantage points and vistas, fresh insights that give a uniquely personal history of artistic time that indeed points to new and open futures. - Lowry Burgess, Dean, Professor of Art, Distinguished Fellow of the Studio for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Mel Alexenberg, a very sophisticated artist and scholar of much experience in the complex playing field of art-science-technology, addresses the rarely asked question: How does the "media magic" communicate content? - Otto Piene, Professor Emeritus and Director, MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. This is a wonderful and important book. The author links the history of art to the important role played by various forms of thinking in the Jewish tradition and connects that to the emerging culture of digital expression. Brilliant insights and new ways of seeing make this a must-read for anyone interested in the intellectual history of images in the 21st Century. - Ron Burnett, author of How Images Think (MIT Press, 2005), President of Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design in Vancouver, Canada, and Artist/Designer at the New Media Innovation Center. The Future of Art in a Digital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness opens new vistas in the attempts to reconcile the newest developments in digital art and postmodern critical perspectives with the ancient concerns of the arts with the spiritual. It offers fresh perspectives in how we can learn from Greek and Jewish thought to understand the present era. - Stephen Wilson, author of Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology (MIT Press, 2002) and Professor of Conceptual and Information Arts at San Francisco State University. The author succeeds in opening a unique channel to the universe of present and future art in a highly original and inspiring way. His connection between ancient concepts (Judaism) and the present digital age will force us to thoroughly rethink our ideas about art, society and technology. This book is evidence that Golem is alive! - Michael Bielicky, Professor of Media Arts at the Academy of Fine Arts in Prague, Czech Republic, and at Hochschule fur Gestaltung, ZKM Center for Art and Media, in Karlsruhe, Germany. This book is simply a must read analysis for anyone interested in where we and the visual arts are going in our future. Alexenberg has provided us with powerful new lenses to allow us to "see" how postmodern art movements and classical Judaic traditions compliment and fructify one another as the visual arts are now enlarging and adding a spiritual dimension to our lives in the digital era. - Moshe Dror, co-author of Futurizing the Jews: Alternative Futures for the 21st Century (Praeger, 2003), President of World Network of Religious Futurists, and Israel Coordinator of World Future Society. This Hebraic-postmodern quest is for a dialogue midway on Jacob's ladder where man and God, artist and society, and artwork and viewer/participant engage in ongoing commentary. - Randall Rhodes, Professor and Chairman, Department of Visual Art, Frostburg State University, Maryland. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via panel-awarded commissions. For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected to create original works of net art. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/">http://rhizome.org/commissions/</a> The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has been provided by members of the Rhizome community. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, ARN <info@x-arn.org>, Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> Date: Aug 15, 2006 Subject: New media art shouldn't suck +T.Whid posted:+ <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/new_media_art_shouldn_t_suck.html">http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/new_media_art_shouldn_t_suck.html</a>> AFC has a good post today <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://artfagcity.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-media-why-it-doesnt-suck-part-two.html">http://artfagcity.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-media-why-it-doesnt-suck-part-two.html</a>> about the realities of new media artists crossing-over into the larger art world. Here's the bit that should be common sense to new media artists (but often isn't): +++ AFC quote: Unlike many professions, there are a great number of people within the art world who could give a shit about the Internet. [?] This sort of thing can create problems for artists who are making work in the medium because the people who understand it best are often the sixteen year nerds [sic] who spend 18 hours a day in front of a computer, as opposed to art world professionals who are responsible for the evaluation of art. +++ There are some new media artists who cross-over and make it look easy. Cory Arcangel and the McCoys come to mind. Arcangel succeeds by acting a bit like a ethnographer who travels into hacker culture and exports the bits that make sense to the art world. The McCoys succeed by addressing the older tradition of film and not letting themselves geek-out when addressing the art world. MTAA recently had our worst fears realized when speaking to some traditional art world types about a new piece we're developing with RSG. We were told bluntly that phrases like 'peer-to-peer' and 'file-sharing' are jargon and the art world doesn't give a shit about them anyway. At first, I was defiant. These file-sharing networks are part of the subject of the piece, I told the art world pro. It's like saying you don't like apples so you don't like paintings of apples. It's just not your subject. But then we realized, with some help from the art world pro (who's remaining nameless but was very sharp and helpful), that we were failing to communicate what is interesting about our subject. (At least our 7 minute presentation about the project didn't communicate it.) What we find interesting and exciting culturally about this technology needs to be expressed to folks in the present that may be ignorant of it or fail to understand it. We also need to communicate to people in the future that may have no idea what happened in the late 90s / early 00s. MTAA has been wanting to move into the gallery for quite some time now. In order to do so, we'll need to start thinking that our audience is completely ignorant of digital culture. We can't expect them to be geeks that are excited about a good hack. We'll need to communicate our emotion, interest and excitement. We can't expect them to share it until we communicate every bit of it. I can't believe it took me so long to realize this? +marc replied:+ Yes - a problem. We have recently been funding the making of some films about net artists/media arts, with the aim of sending them to various education organisations & to be part of some exhibitions - and also promoting them to various television companies. Which seem to be quite popular - some of the local audiences who have been coming to the space (HTTP) are finding it a lot easier in viewing these films, about the artists and the work. Usually before they view much of the work online itself. We are also in the process of building an online facility where net artists/media artists who wish to share their practise and want to explain 'one' project - they can do, by uploading a film about it and giving a story about it. It will be up in a couple of weeks hopefully. What I find in respect of many artists is, that if they are given the chance to speak for themselves about their work - usually people get it if it is not too bound up in jargon. But of course, we have to be careful not to lower the standards I suppose - the art still needs it raw dynamic and intensity. +ARN replied:+ > MTAA has been wanting to move into the gallery for quite some time > now. In order to do so, we'll need to start thinking that our audience > is completely ignorant of digital culture. We can't expect them to be > geeks that are excited about a good hack. We'll need to communicate > our emotion, interest and excitement. We can't expect them to share it > until we communicate every bit of it. Making art with the internet is just like making art with anything else. It just says that you don't need the 'art world' to do it, unless you need the money from this art world. What you're telling about is not a lack of digital culture from the audience, but a lack of audience's power on what you can do. It's the same if you put a piece of plastic with a mirror on a beach, not many people will see that as art, everyone can do it, and yes precisely, it's just a human act which says that art is just a human thing.. and this act doesn't need any 'art world' to mystify the act. The 'art world' of such an act is simply the world itself, and so it is for a net.art piece. try it: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/Arc">http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/Arc</a> +Ryan Griffis replied:+ It's interesting to hear someone in the art world say that "peer-to-peer" is jargon, while shows can be titled things like, say, "Dereconstruction." Maybe if it was B2B, rather than P2P, it would generate more interest :) Geez, it's not as if the art world is still using the telegraph. Is it really possible that people buying thousands of dollars + of art really don't know what "peer-to-peer" means? Seems unlikely. Do they care or like it? i guess that's another issue. But i honestly can't imagine it being any more difficult to explain what "peer-to-peer" means than something like "cultural hybridity" or many of the vaguely theoretical signifiers widely used in art. i think if the significance of Dada (not to mention the non-concept of "dereconstruction") can be explained to a general audience, "file sharing" shouldn't be too difficult. Obviously, it's not a matter of simple semantics and vocabulary at issue here, and museums have a somewhat different mandate than galleries. i agree with the need to make clear the significance/interest of work without relying on the capital of catch phrases, but i'm also skeptical that the ideas MTAA is talking could be read as exclusionary in the context of the art world. Then again, if it's just a pragmatic issue of gaining acceptance in their terrain, i guess all of this is really irrelevant – it's just easier to do what is expected. Aside from the obvious problem of value appreciation/depreciation (art object vs. software), could it also be an issue of High Art's historic problem with the kitsch factor of popular media and language (i.e. commercially vulgar rather than transcendent)? just a thought, maybe not on target. +Jim Andrews replied:+ I suspect that actually is on target. Also, just because an art pro couldn't care less about the Internet as an art medium, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't have some ideas about what is to be found on the Internet. Very likely he or she just has not found much net art on it but is somewhat familiar with any number of other dimensions of the Internet. Such as the pop net for teenagers (if he or she has kids) which consists mainly of IM, youtube-like videos, viral games, and other assorted yuks. And shopping sites. Etc. To make an analogy with TV, it's as though there are interesting TV stations that are in unusual channel locations that aren't covered in the usual TV guides. +Pall Thayer replied:+ > AFC quote: > > Unlike many professions, there are a great number of people within the > art world who could give a shit about the Internet. [?] This sort of > thing can create problems for artists who are making work in the > medium because the people who understand it best are often the sixteen > year nerds [sic] who spend 18 hours a day in front of a computer, as > opposed to art world professionals who are responsible for the > evaluation of art. > > +++ I don't agree that "the people who understand it best are often the sixteen year nerds…" They usually don't understand it because they don't understand the "art" within. The right people to understand are the art-world people but they allow themselves to be scared off by the tech. If they just take a little time to look beyond, they'll see that it's just art. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. From: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>, rob@robmyers.org, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, ARN <info@x-arn.org>, Patrick Tresset <autrechose@btopenworld.com>, bram <bram.org@gmail.com>, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> Date: Aug 17-18, 2006 Subject: Charlie puts NMA's down… + marc posted:+ Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down. "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on her PC." I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this on-line. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html">http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html</a> Also check rhizome front page… Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-) +T.Whid replied:+ He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead… with the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the top people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.) Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think that would be abundantly obvious to everyone. +rob@robmyers.org replied:+ Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com>: > He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of > technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead… > with the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the > top people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.) This is a historically unprecedented situation. Early computer artists begged, borrowed, stole or remortgaged for access to computer technology at the same time as the pioneers of AI research and mathematical simulation. If they'd stuck with tabulators we wouldn't be here now. Painters have always availed themselves of technological and theoretical developments. Even fire was new once, and cave artists didn't stick with twigs and berries. For "New Media" art to be a kind of aethetic and technological conservatism breaks the irony tag. People are building careers cannibalising the gains of the 60s and 70s into accessible work for the usual suspects. This is kitsch; cheaply made and heavily marketed mass-produced versions of something that once meant something. It ignores the historical and cultural context of the very work it cannibalises. > Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and > utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you > don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think > that would be abundantly obvious to everyone. Charlie has been in New Media longer than some of us. His criticism can be answered, but let's not try to pretend it is unreasonable. If Google Earth had been submitted to SIGGRAPH a decade ago it would have been a triumph. Its gee-whiz effect is an aesthetic and conceptual effect: it shows you a different worldview, it makes you look at the world differently. It changes your perceptions and adds to your range of experience of regard. It is not art, but it is an effective analog to art and it is more effective than much New Media art. We would do well to ask ourselves why this is and why *precisely* it is not art. That might help us get a GPS lock on some tasks that New Media needs to start working on rather urgently if it is not to become the new water colors. Possibly one doesn't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. But a New Media artist is an artist working with new media, by *definition* they are working with gee-whiz technology. We cannot decide that time stopped in 1996 (or whenever we could first afford our own copy of Director and a QuickTime codec). Nam June Paik's later work has a different meaning to earlier work done with the same technology. Charcoal does not mean the same thing now as it did twenty thousand years ago. IT has become pervasive. It is now landscape rather than still life, ground rather than figure. We can work with this, turning from unpaid salespeople of the gee-whiz to embedded reporters and critics of it in the wider world. Or we can reaffirm the link between the new and new media (and the high and high art) amd pursue the new arenas for computation (wearable, mobile, massively networked) and new levels of computing power (can I get a Beowulf cluster of that?) that have emerged over the last decade. Or we can regroup, take stock, look hard at where we've come from and where we are and try to maintain that trajectory or to generate a new one. This turns the trend that Charlie criticises into a virtue. The current state of New Media art is revealing about changing social relations in western culture. This in itself is interesting and might generate some useful work for New Media artists to do. +marc replied:+ HI T.Whid & all, >He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead…with the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the top people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.) And my answer would be to him, well 'so what?' We know we cannot build a spaceship to splurt out happy patterns around the galaxy and all that nonsense. If media art is only measured by its supposed 'cutting edge' of technology I would personally find it all pretty boring. for me, it's the context, the communities that use it, the networked nature of it, the ideas that come out of it, the content created with it, the fact that it is free (almost) from historical control and lame canons and htere is more, so much more - he seemed to miss all these vital ingredients… >Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think that would be abundantly obvious to everyone. It's like measuring the size of a male protrudence next to another I think, mine is bigger and better than yours kind of thing. If I was one of those artists mentioned in the article I would feel pretty embraressed to aquainted to such a negative and non-visionary stance. Perhaps Charlie is aiming to fill the shoes to be the 'Brian Sewell' of the media art world. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://linkme2.net/9h">http://linkme2.net/9h</a> He manages make everything sound so boring and tired - completely opposite to those who are actually doing it, why the heck is he writing about it and invited to conferences about it - if he hates it so much? I actually respected Charlie Gere and thought that he had some important things to say regarding media art and its culture but, this has forced me to re-evaluate my original feelings about him. If he can just irresponsibly blabber on in the mass media press (a murdoch paper at that) and flippantly diss a whole generation, with such misinformation then something might have to be done about it - in a productive way of course ;-) +Jim Andrews replied:+ new technology, in itself, is not interesting art. we can see that from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.playdojam.com">http://www.playdojam.com</a> . there we have new technology used in an entertaining way, but not interesting as art. the virtual basketball game just doesn't interest as art, however entertaining it is. perhaps with a few modifications you could significantly change the meaning of the activity and turn it into art. for instance, consider the famous 'computer game' where you try to shoot all the terrorists, but in doing so, you spawn more terrorists. The technology is very similar to game technology but it is altered so that the meaning of the activity is significantly different from the usual computer game. google earth is exceptional in that the new technology is used in a richly meaningful way. but, usually, when new technology comes around, the uses to which it's put, initially, are, at best, entertaining. artists excel in discovering/creating deeper human meaning in the processes technology supports. new language, in itself, is not poetry. it takes some time to tease the poetry from new language, to be able to feel with the new language, to turn the new extension of the body or mind from an inarticulate claw into something capable of summoning poetry. but artists should not be afraid of learning how to use technology. how to program. how to use mathematics, physics, etc, because there lies the key, often, to more subtle and meaningful articulation of the technology. +ARN replied:+ another quote: "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels." i think this is great, so will better write: "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels." why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ? +marc replied:+ Hi Arn, I have heard this kind of argument many times, when meeting curators mostly. I would have to disagree with Charlie here, because for one - not everyone wants to be an artist. Plus - art does not always come from places that one would prefer it to arrive from, it is more than just a studied and inhereted creativity… I have always been excited that the web has been bringing about independent creativity, outside of the usual places, such as art institutions myself. It also challenges the too readily accepted hierarchies to take a lookoutisde of their assumed vistas… +Jim Andrews replied:+ > another quote: > "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising > the idea of > the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the > end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we > all drown > in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched > microchannels." > > i think this is great, so will better write: > > "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of > experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels." > > why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ? Both of these have already happened, haven't they? It's like the wave and particle theories of light. They are at odds with each other but both shed some light on um light. Not "billions" of channels–and more channels of dreck than creative microchannels–but enough of both that it almost might as well be "billions". Also, one person's creative microchannel is another's dreck. What art is is continually under revision in a wacky wiki with no file protection and thousands of copies of what once was only a few hundred copies. I recall McLuhan and Ong emphasizing that in some cultures, there is no concept of art, although there are/were many artifacts that are now interpreted as art. And in some of these cultures, they say 'no, we don't make art; we just try to make everything we make with care and attention." Art is continually torn apart, rent asunder, dying, dead, dismembered–and continually subject to remembering, transformation, regeneration, transmigration, resurrection. It's like Orpheus on a very bad hair day where there's one limb here, one limb there, death and destruction of he himself all around yet different versions of himself in various stages of life–not even recognizable as being he himself–maybe not even he himself, by now. And now we see even very little use in linking them all to Orpheus, since the process by now involves so many hybrids, many of which quite clearly do not involve Orpheus so much as non-Orphic figures that we think it might not be like this at all. +Patrick Tresset replied:+ I am not sure if everybody knows that Charlie is involved in a very interesting and well funded project initiated by Paul Brown called Drawbot. +bram replied:+ Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is very badly equipped to access new information) I think we have to defend new media art we will have to be missionaries we will have to educate we will have to infiltrate we will have to explain we will have to promote early netart And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different spheres, to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating sense. Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the most important vector by which we work. Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place we feel at home (at least some of us) Restart reading at the beginning. Annie Abrahams PS 1 What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many people wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting edge art in watercolours, but it's rare. Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new media. We exist! PS 2 Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator? Indeed, how many persons are behind? Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful abstract images? I would like to have them too :) +ARN replied:+ > Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new > media. We exist! Art is not rare, art is everywhere for whom can see it. Art is what we say it is. I agree with Jim Andrews about the parallel with theory of light. > PS 2 > Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator? > Indeed, how many persons are behind? I never tried to count. I thought about people behind works presented in articles from sources used in this aggregator. > Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful > abstract images? it's more and not more…it depends how you look at it. If you read french (i know you do ;-), you can read: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/PoieticAggregator">http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/PoieticAggregator</a> " Si les initiateurs de ce projet envisagent essentiellement des activités de veille, je crois aussi qu'une interface de ce type pourrait être trés utile pour la gestions des alertes, le suivi des activités multi-projets ou encore la surveillance d'un parc de machines " for me, it's just a way to produce abstract images, and not necessarily beautiful. secondly i use it sometimes to jump in unknown online works. +Lee Wells replied:+ Art is not rare. It is everywhere. Just sometimes is not well thought out. +Patrick Tresset replied:+ I personally find those discussions to qualify one activity or another as Art fairly sterile. I was recently at a workshop where Charlie was and his comments were certainly very intelligent but not very constructive. He seems to have a very precise opinion of what art should be and is (well I suppose it is more or less his job). I think his opinion has to be taken as what it is: an opinion. +marc replied:+ I agree, it is an opinion - and should be acknowledged as such. But it is an opinion in a national news paper which does give it a different emphasis. +Patrick Tresset replied:+ Hi Marc, Yes I know. And his opinion is very much respected certainly for some good reasons My opinion on classifying what we do as art. Is that it is not my problem, or role as an artist. My role is to do my work as well a possible, and if it is art I produce or my programs produce it will be considered as such by some people (including some critics/curators/historians) but not by all. the above is only my opinion + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Marisa Olson (marisa@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 11, number 31. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +