RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.03.04

discussion

Posted Dec. 2 2004 19:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.03.04

RHIZOME DIGEST: December 3, 2004 Content: +note+ 1. Francis Hwang: Director of Technology's report, November 2004 +announcement+ 2. olia lialina: 1000$ Page Award Winners 3. nathaniel stern: Art & Technology, johannesburg 4. Tom Trevor: Computing 101B at SPACEX 5. sgp: MobileSCOUT tops 100 calls!! +opportunity+ 6. Kristin Musgnug: job posting (University of Arkansas) +work+ 7. Rhizome.org: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Crowds and Power by Jody Zellen +thread+ 8. Francis Hwang, steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org, Rob Myers: Unauthorized iPod U2 vs. Negativland Special Edition 9. t.whid, Plasma Studii, abe linkoln, atomic elroy, ryan griffis, Jim Andrews, M. River, jimpunk, manik, Rob Myers, James Allan: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 12.02.04 From: Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> Subject: Director of Technology's report, November 2004 Hey all, Here are some of the things that happened at Rhizome this month: 1. Blogging event We had a well-attended panel discussion at the New Museum's temporary Chelsea digs, with lots of great incisive discussion about blogging and the arts, and their intersections or lack thereof. We have video that we'll be putting out soon; watch this space. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/events/blogging_and_the_arts/">http://rhizome.org/events/blogging_and_the_arts/</a> 2. Member-curated exhibits Member-curated exhibits launched this month: Any Rhizome member can curate an exhibit from works in the ArtBase. From peeking in the database it would seem that there are a good number of still-in-progress exhibits … so, those of you who've been using it, how is it? Let us know your thoughts. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/">http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/</a> 3. More RSS feeds: Member-curated exhibits, and calendars exhibit.rss shows you member-curated exhibits as they're opened to the public, and calendar.rss shows you calendar events for the next month. "What a beautiful set of content streams you have, Grandma!" "The better to republish you with, my dear." <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/syndicate/">http://rhizome.org/syndicate/</a> Yours, Francis Hwang Director of Technology Rhizome.org phone: 212-219-1288x202 AIM: francisrhizome + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 11.29.04 From: olia lialina <olia@profolia.org> Subject: 1000$ Page Award Winners 1000$ Page Award 28.11.04 We are ready to publicly announce the winners and to confess that we haven't found an individual 1000$ page this year. But we are happy to award several personal sites with smaller sums. In the last few days we contacted the winners, asked them for a thank you speech and managed to meet some of them to pass along the cash, to celebrate and to document the improvised award ceremonies. for names and details visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://art.teleportacia.org/1000$/page.html">http://art.teleportacia.org/1000$/page.html</a> with love and respect, jury 2004 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 11.29.04 From: nathaniel stern <nathaniel@hektor.net> Subject: Art & Technology, johannesburg Apologies for cross-posting; it's important stuff, I swear. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.atjoburg.net/">http://www.atjoburg.net/</a> Inspired by a visit to the Dublin Art and Technology Association (DATA), joburg local digi-artists decided it was time to start a similar organization in Johannesburg, South Africa. Community leaders worked together with WSOA Digital Arts to launch Art & Technology, johannesburg (AT.joburg). With the similar intentions of promoting, exploring, discussing, and exhibiting art and (artists working with) technology in South Africa and the world, our test-run event featured the work of DATA co-founder, Jonah Brucker-Cohen. AT.joburg, although founded by a Wits lecturer, has no base. The events, usually held about once/month, range in space from galleries, to bars, clubs, studios, and the Wits' digital convent and lab. Our presenters are musicians, VJs & DJs, academics, artists, designers, curators, technologists, poets and dancer/choreographers. Our aims are to showcase local work, facilitate presentations by visiting artists, and promote collaboration and dialogue between talents working in varying disciplines, backgrounds and media, at the intersection of Art & Technology. Any event organizer or artist in the Gauteng area can contact us for a username and password, to blog your events on the site; any person may throw an AT.joburg affiliated event - so long as it is in line with our goals, open to the public, and free! We are actively recruiting leaders of the Art & Technology community for participation - both on and offline. We ask you to contribute, and to watch this space - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.atjoburg.net/">http://www.atjoburg.net/</a> - for upcoming events! nathaniel <a rel="nofollow" href="http://nathanielstern.com">http://nathanielstern.com</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships 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 Kevin McGarry at Kevin@Rhizome.org or Rachel Greene at Rachel@Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 12.01.04 From: Tom Trevor <info@spacex.co.uk> Subject: Computing 101B at SPACEX SPACEX PRESS RELEASE Preview: Friday 3 December 2004, 6 - 8pm COMPUTING 101B . . .  JODI . . . 4 December 2004 to 19 February 2005 Computing 101B is inspired by the very things people hate most about computers: viruses, glitches, pop-up windows. It works on the anxiety and sense of panic that everyday computer malfunctions can cause - the all too familiar symptoms of the high-tech era. The exhibition presents the work of Netherlands-based artist duo JODI, whose work, My%Desktop, earned international acclaim with its premiere last year at the Eyebeam Centre in New York. This "computer masterpiece" features four giant Mac desktops, with windows manically opening and closing as if controlled by some unseen, chaotic force, accompanied by a breathtaking soundtrack of collaged computer bleeps and squeaks. JODI also present a new work, Max Payne Cheats Only Gallery, based on the best-selling computer game, Max Payne 2. Instead of the main character being controlled by a gamer, a series of loops capture him wandering aimlessly, without regard for his mission, searching for the spaces where the logic of the game breaks down. Computing 101B is a touring exhibition organised by FACT, Liverpool, with support from the Mondriaan Foundation and Arts Council England. Max Payne Cheats Only Gallery was commissioned by FACT, Liverpool. SPACEX is supported by Arts Council England, Exeter City Council and Devon County Council. SPACEX, 45 Preston Street, Exeter EX1 1DF, UK. www.spacex.co.uk Open Tuesday to Saturday, 10am to 5pm. Admission free. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 12.02.04 From: sgp <somebody@sgp-7.net> Subject: MobileSCOUT tops 100 calls!! "Don't delay, call today!" - Ranger Hi all, Ranger and I have heard from a lot of you and well, we're giddy about the worlds you've described to us. For example, some of you told us about mesmerizing badgers, laying in highway ditches, some cave dwellers, being stuck in classrooms or cubicles. First of all, let me say that after MiniKISS*, badgers rock, so respect the furry tail. Second, we realize mobile phones let you make calls from most anywhere and we encourage scouting out new locations but learn from us, don't push up to the front speakers and blow out your eardrums, ok? Last, for those of you trapped in cubicleville or schooltown we're here for you. Just give us a call or go see us online and spare the office supplies and desktops. * FYI: Mini-KISS is back on tour: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.littlemanentertainment.com/upcomingshows2.html">http://www.littlemanentertainment.com/upcomingshows2.html</a> + + + Mobile SCOUT A mobile phone & web public art project by Julian Bleecker, Scott Paterson and Marina Zurkow Online, and on your cell phone www.mobilescout.org Commissioned for the exhibit, "Database Imaginary" by the Walter Phillips Gallery, Banff Centre, Alberta, Canada Curated by Sarah Cook, Steve Dietz, and Anthony Kiendl Nov 14 2004, Jan 30 2005 Nov 12, 2004, New York : Mobile Scout, a field guide of audio narratives, will launch this weekend on cell phone and web. Using your mobile phone to call a toll-free number, you are guided through a verbal interaction with the Mobile Scout Ranger - an automated quirky naturalist and his foxy Squirrel assistant. Through this interaction, you will leave a voice message describing your local surroundings, characters, or events. As recordings are left by participants, they are instantly made available at the web site, www.mobilescout.org, which structures participantsâ?? interactions in the form of a field guide database. In a new slant on "time based media," Mobile Scout is 3000 participatory minutes long - that's the duration of Mobile Scout's toll free minutes. 'Many internet projects lack temporal shape,' says Paterson. We decided to contrast the anywhere/anytime/always constraint typical of internet projects by limiting ourselves in the time dimension. After 3000 minutes of public participation, the www.mobilescout.org field guide will exist as an archived repository, representative of the time-specific character of the project. 'In this post-election media-scape, where nothing is different but everything has changed, it's critical to give cultural voice to our concerns, observations and celebrations,' prompts Zurkow. Bleecker enlightens, 'Mobile Scout is the first world-wide megaphone in that it takes advantage of the ubiquity of the telephone and the pervasive character of the internet, amplifying, cataloging and documenting these audio moments all around the globe.' Mobile Scout was commissioned as part of the 'Database Imaginary' exhibit at Walter Phillips Gallery, Banff Centre, that opens Nov 13th, 2004 (databaseimaginary.banff.org <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://databaseimaginary.banff.org/">http://databaseimaginary.banff.org/</a>> ) The Mobile Scout field guide is available for download at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mobilescout.org/downloads/mobileSCOUT_Brochure.pdf">http://www.mobilescout.org/downloads/mobileSCOUT_Brochure.pdf</a> To see and participate in the Mobile Scout field guide go to: www.mobilescout.org/ With Mobile Scout, Zurkow, Paterson and Bleecker continue their acclaimed, experimental 'mapping' project PDPal, which was exhibited in Times Square through Creative Time in 2003-2004, and through the Walker Art Center in Minnesota in 2003. For more information on PDPal and the artists, go to www.pdpal.com/about + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.net/your_account_name">http://rhizome.net/your_account_name</a>). Details at: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/services/1.php">http://rhizome.org/services/1.php</a> ++ Through December 31: a free domain with each hosting plan purchased! ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 11.29.04 From: Kristin Musgnug <kmusgnug@uark.edu> Subject: job posting (University of Arkansas) Visual Design UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS Tenure-track Assistant Professor. Begin Fall 2005. Required qualifications: MFA in studio art with emphasis in web design, college level teaching experience, evidence of creative achievement, and professional exhibition record. Preferred qualifications: ability to teach web design, animation and multi-media; ability to address the work of students in other art media; knowledge of historical art as well as contemporary art issues; and interest in teaching in a department pursuing the integration of traditional and digital methods of art making. Responsibilities include teaching 5 courses per year (including upper division courses in area of specialization and introductory course in computer applications in art); working with MFA students; and sharing responsibilities of computer lab maintenance. Full position announcement is online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://hr.uark.edu/employment/listingsjob.asp?ListingID=2711">http://hr.uark.edu/employment/listingsjob.asp?ListingID=2711</a> Send 1) cover letter, 2) curriculum vitae, 3) artist?s statement, 4) statement of teaching philosophy, 5) 20 images of own work ? as slides, dual formatted CD, or DVD; include video if applicable ? 6) 20 images of student work, 7) 3 letters of reference with contact phone numbers and e-mail addresses, and 8) self-addressed, stamped envelope for return of material to: Visual Design Search Committee Department of Art 116 Fine Arts Center University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201 Please indicate if attending CAA. Application deadline is January 15, 2005. The University of Arkansas is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Applications from women and minorities are especially welcome. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NEW: Rhizome Member-curated Exhibits <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/">http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/</a> View online exhibits Rhizome members have curated from works in the ArtBase, or learn how to create your own exhibit. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 12.02.04 From: Rhizome.org <artbase@rhizome.org> Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Crowds and Power by Jody Zellen Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase … <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?29618">http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?29618</a> + Crowds and Power + + Jody Zellen + Crowds and Power uses mediated images to explore the relationship between space, memory, and territory. Windows containing image fragments emphasize the displacement of individuals and the transformation of urban space where large gatherings, demonstrations, and struggles are represented. By juxtaposing charged images with theoretical and philosphical texts about the nature of crowds this website explores internal and external conflicts. + + + Biography Jody Zellen is an artist living in Los Angeles, California. Her web site "Ghost City" was in the 2000 EMAF festival in Germany as well as in the 1999 Siggraph TechnOasis art Site and was included in the exibition Net Condition at ZKM. It was also presented at the interactive Frictions Conference in LA in 1999 and at IDCA 1999 "Ghost City" was featured in the 1998 LA Freewaves festival and in 6th Annual New York Digital Salon ."Ghost City" was included in the festival "film+arc. graz, Austria in 1997. In her website, installations and artistÂ´t books she explore the subject of the city . Zellen has exhibited her work nationally and internationally including solo exhibitions at Art Resources (NY, NY,, 2000) ; Nexus Contemporary Art Center ( Atlanta , GA, 1999); Jan Kesner Gallery ( Los Angeles, 1998, 1997 ) ; Mesa College Art gallery ( Santa Monica, CA, 1996) ; SF Jody Zellen is an artist living in Los Angeles, California. She works in many media simultaneously making photographs, installations, net art, public art, as well as artists' books that explore the subject of the urban environment. She is currently working on two public art projects for the City of Los Angeles and was a recipient of a 2004 Cultural Affairs (COLA) Grant. Recent exhibitions included include: "Futuresonic 04," Manchester England; "Images Festival," Toronto, Canada, 2004; "Downtown Digital," Pace Digital Gallery, NY, 2003; "Day Job," New Langton Arts, San Francisco, CA, 2002; the XXV Bienal de Sao Paulo, 2002; "Urban Festval," Zagreb, Croatia, 2002; "Artfuture2000," Taipei; "International Biennial of Architecture, Florence"; and "Net_Condition," ZKM, 1999. Her website "Ghost City" (www.ghostcity.com) begun in 1997 is an ever changing, poetic meditation on the urban environment. In addition to "Ghost City" her other web projects include "Random Paths" (www.randompaths.com); "Visual Chaos" (www.visualchaos.org). Her website "Crowds and Power" was the October 2002 portal for the Whitney Museum's artport (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://artport.whitney.org">http://artport.whitney.org</a>). "Disembodied Voices" (www.disembodiedvoices.com) is her latest web project. It has recently been coverted into a 5 projector interactive installation. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 11.30.04-12.01.04 From: Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org>, <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>, Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> Subject: Unauthorized iPod U2 vs. Negativland Special Edition Hi all, Just in time for the holiday shopping season, I've opened an eBay auction for the Unauthorized iPod U2 vs. Negativland Special Edition. Commemorating the infamous early-90s case in which U2's record label crushed indie noisemakers Negativland, this iPod is a U2 iPod that comes pre-loaded with lots of Negativland tunes, and some fancy box modifications. Experimental noise content trapped in a corporate megarock shell–oh, the humanity! Profits will go to Downhill Battle, a non-profit organization advocating for a less sucktastic music industry. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2290680118">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2290680118</a> + + + steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org replied: What actually happened with that? They used to have a radioshow on KPFA. I mean other than making all my Negitvland stuff collector's editions what happened to Negativland. Last I looked they still had a website and many ongoing projects it seems everytime they get "crushed" they do something different. Note well, in one of those weirdnesses of life I really admire negativland but having met them once I can see were weren't the types that were going to do lots of collaborative works. P.S. Their website has a lot of goodies to download and play with… Speaking of vanished projects, did anyone ever know what really ever happened with the magazine "Grey Areas" which flourished for awhile and then dissappeared? + + + Francis Hwang replied: Steve Kudlak wrote: > What actually happened with that? They used to have a > radioshow on KPFA. I mean other than making all my Negitvland > stuff collector's editions what happened to Negativland. > Last I looked they still had a website and many ongoing projects > it seems everytime they get "crushed" they do something > different. You can't get the "U2" single legally anymore … The rights are, I think, owned by Island Records, and they decided to bury it. I still can't be certain as to U2's involvement case. They'd maintained they weren't involved, when they talk about it at all, but then there's this funny exchange at a 2001 Duke Law conference, excerpted from this write-up ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yvw-YnXuV6kJ:www.law.duke.edu/framed/in">http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yvw-YnXuV6kJ:www.law.duke.edu/framed/in</a> dy.pdf+negativland+u2+%22fuck+you%22&hl=en ): "I was confused," [R.E.M. general counsel Bertis Downs] said. He sent a copy of the single to U2 because "they were my friends. I'd do it again." Then he added, "I use your book on Fair Use in my entertainment law course." Video here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/mpeg1/public%20domain%203.mpg">http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/mpeg1/public%20domain%203.mpg</a> When I was doing the work for this and chatting about with people I knew, one thing I discovered is that a lot of relatively clueful people have never heard of this case. That surprised me, though maybe it shouldn't have … + + + steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org replied: Well it seems to be that way for a lot of people. I know that a lot of people in the Bill of Rights Defense Community don't know of the case of Buffalo Art Professor Steve Kurtz who Federal Prosecutors initially wanted to charge with Bioterrorism for having some pretty harmless microrganisms. They were going to use the Patriot Act to get even more charges. Well that failed and as a consolatrion prize they are trying to charge him and a friend at the Univerity of Pittsburgh with mail fraud. Now in his case it maybe because his lawyer told him to shut up and not talk to anybody. Lawyers do that a lot. The whole case with U2 show the sad state of affairs. I mean it is not like U2 was actually hurt by aby of this. I mean rock musicians on a major label still do make money hand over fist and "indie rockers" U2 are very rich folks. So most people have trouble being sympathetic to them. It would be nice if we could figure a way to reward artists in some way that didn't turn a few people into very rich people and leave the majority of artists in the poor and struggling category. We then make up little sayings like "An artist does his best work while hungry" to assauge our guilt. What is odd is tbat Negativland so throughly transforms the work of those they sample from that they are hardly copying. For me I would hope that artists started by accepting Paypal or something, or putting up little signs that said donations would be accepted at such and such an address. + + + Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> added: On Wednesday, December 01, 2004, at 04:46PM, <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org> wrote: >It would be nice if we could figure a way to reward artists in some way >that didn't turn a few people into very rich people and leave the >majority of artists in the poor and struggling category. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tfisher.org/PTK.htm">http://www.tfisher.org/PTK.htm</a> And a slightly different take on the same system: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.free-culture.cc">http://www.free-culture.cc</a> I'd be interested to see what Rhizomers think of Alternative Compensation Systems for music, and whether they can see any way of them being extended to art or performance. + + + Francis Hwang replied: Steve Kudlak wrote: > The whole case with U2 show the sad state of affairs. I mean it is not > like U2 was actually hurt by aby of this. I mean rock musicians on a > major label still do make money hand over fist and "indie rockers" U2 > are very rich folks. So most people have trouble being sympathetic to > them. One of the things I think is interesting, too, is that some people who know about it write it off by saying U2 didn't initiate the lawsuit, so it's not like they have any responsibility. Which comes down to how you conceive of responsibility in the first place. If U2 had no say in the matter, and Island was just doing it on their behalf, U2 is still responsible in my book. Just like I'm personally culpable, to some extent, for the deaths of Iraqi children even though I openly opposed to U.S. policy in Iraq. That's something that's being done in _my_ name. U2 has a chance to fix this: They could, for example, come out strongly for remix rights, and they could compensate Negativland for legal costs, which would barely make a dent in their personal wealth. But people don't expect that of rock stars, because rock stars feed into this adolescent guy fantasy of four guys touring the country in a van, no responsibilities, just free on the open road … of course, when you're at the level of U2, rock 'n' roll is basically another industry, and every sort of industry has its own toxic waste that it tries to dump when you're not looking. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 12.01.04-12.07.04 From: t.whid <twhid@twhid.com>, Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org>, abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net>, atomic elroy <atomicelroy@mac.com>, ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com>, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, M. River <mriver102@yahoo.com>, jimpunk <www@jimpunk.com>, manik <manik@ptt.yu>, Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com>, James Allan <james@teleportacia.org> Subject: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ] t.whid <twhid@twhid.com> posted: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/">http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/</a> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html + + + Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied: (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/uri">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/uri</a> nal_art) twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take? probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but think it means something important in art history. what??? how else could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a snub. the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly NOT art. never was. duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly huge farce. it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce. it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and people couched it in theoretical art speak. anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream world, would just say "are you kidding? i don't want your toilet. i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look guys. looky." we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors and smile. it's too blatant to even be irony. the joke's over, and curators are still insisting "i know you are, but what am i?" + + + t.whid replied: On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote: >> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/">http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/</a> >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html > (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/</a> > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art) > > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take? > > > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a > snub. > > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly > NOT art. never was. Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt). > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly > huge farce. He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as anything else. > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce. > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and > people couched it in theoretical art speak. It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not Picasso, not Matisse. Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them. Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed it from physical form. No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art work in the 20th century. > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream > world, would just say "are you kidding? that's what they said at first. > i don't want your toilet. absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition. > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected. Why can't an insult be great art? He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call it art.' > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look > guys. looky." > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors > and smile. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be denied. The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90 years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's genius IMO. + + + abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> added: 'nude descending a staircase (abe linkoln's 2004 mix)' posted yesterday on screenfull.net: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/nude-descending-staircase-abe-link">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/nude-descending-staircase-abe-link</a> olns.html + + + atomic elroy <atomicelroy@mac.com> added: I agree with t.whid and the "500 arts figures". The Fountain is the MOST INFLUENTIAL work of the 20th century. It INFLUENCED and effected all art subsequently. It is not the best crafted, or best executed, not even the most clever, but indeed the MOST INFLUENTIAL! + + + ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> added: > That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop > they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to > value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad > art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? > Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art > establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't > be denied. The great thing is that there are replicas! somewhere a conservator is trying to preserve the ideas in porcelain… But i think they did go on merrily selling Picassos. They just added a new style of object to the auction. Duchamp's Rrose Selavy "performance" and quasi-critiques of vision and science are much more significant contributions imo. + + + Plasma Studii - uospn£ replied: >><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential">http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential</a> .html >(<a rel="nofollow" href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/urinal">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/urinal</a> _art) probably should have written more, but had tickets, had to run. i had talked about an either/or thing, either no art or peeing in galleries. on a positive note, there is a nice third alternative that doesn't involve either giving up the institutions or integrity. what if the art market took an about face and started re-valuing things for their tangible qualities, rather than theoretical ones. taste being entirely subjective, at least most of us can appreciate why something would be appreciable, when it has some substantive quality about it. too often, contemporary work (wether" good" or "bad") has mainly theoretical qualities, and pretty much ignores physical properties. in extreme cases, it may be clever, but wasn't intended to be pretty. so only a select sliver of the population could actually see why it would be displayed/have some price. it's an anti-post-post-modern proposition, but screw post-post modernism, it's annoying. one can contend that some DJ is a great artist, but to say that they are a better musicians than coltrane is simply re-defining the term to suit one's point. same with making art objects. duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke. >Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the >context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of >modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow >everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a >show where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's >what he set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name >R.Mutt). which was kinda what i was talking about, but these are particulars, that are pretty beside the point. no matter what he gave em (and i still contend he was trying to give em something that they COULDN'T call art), they took it. >>duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as >>astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as >>this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an >>absurdly huge farce. >He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as >anything else. you've seen scams in new york. the scammer looks sincere and seriously gives the sucker a big line. the sucker buys the line if it's relevant to them. they suspend their incredulous-ness, because the story resonates. but taking the duchamps word or even the folks he hustled, would be pointless. look at the work itself. it's a urinal. >>it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that >>doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take >>themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet >>in their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious >>farce. it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because >>of some label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of >>intellectuals whose concepts representing life are obscuring real >>life. they won't even notice. duchamp was essentially saying >>"here's a toilet. not even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna >>take it seriously?" and people couched it in theoretical art >>speak. >It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems >that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical >manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas >that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades >destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's >many offspring. which seems exactly why not to take it seriously. it's a ludicrously way out of the way detour in art history. conceptually dominant work is just of dubious value at best. skill is not objective, but is far easier for anyone to assess the value. hence, no conned aficionados coveting toilets and nobody wondering if those aficionados should be locked up, rather than given millions to buy things like toilets. maybe they understood at first, but have now lost it? >Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to >make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, >composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art >was carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with >minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and >sculptures just took those ideas and created new ways to make >pictures with them. Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and >with the readymade freed it from physical form. agree. >No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had >the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the >last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his >readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not >irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art >work in the 20th century. definitely. but that's the part that has me the most frustrated. a large impact doesn't imply either for better or worse. and clearly, i agree, duchamp had a large impact. but why on earth did (and still do) anyone even take him seriously for a split second? why wasn't the whole thing dropped from history or an amusing footnote? >The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was >rejected. Why can't an insult be great art? because for art to be a mental exercise it can have it's own word. it wouldn't need funding or displaying. there could just be lists of people's clever ideas published. reading about them is usually far far more interesting than seeing them anyway. the "artist" can bring up all their conceptual points. Maybe art was just usurped. maybe there was art that had skill and aesthetic qualities, that didn't require a thought. But conceptualists took over those institutions and the minds of the new generation of art students. eventually, we are born into a world where art no longer refers to art but actually this conceptualist thing. the conceptualist use the word "art" to both refer to pre-picasso and post-duchamp, switching between the two meanings without even noticing. art was an expression of creativity that integrated a craft/skill with an aesthetic. but that is no longer the vogue. art is now something else entirely. what's odd is that few galleries can really afford to display toilets. they have to bring in the audience or lose funding/revenue. so they have a hybrid version that projects conceptualism onto rembrandts and show contempt for works' physical qualities. you've certainly written proposals for grants, etc. what would these essays have anything to do with whether rembrandt made worthwhile stuff? >> anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just >>sticking a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's >>like the nerdy picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he >>actually forces a laugh, so he can laugh with the bullies picking >>on him. "huh huh huh. look guys. looky." >>we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop >>collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen >>urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody >>wanted to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy >>hard-wood floors and smile. >That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up >shop they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they >choose to value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the >Fountain as bad art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? yeah, that's what i meant. see the top. >Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the >art establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art >couldn't be denied. >The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost >90 years later still causes argument after argument is a testament >to it's genius IMO. i don't think anyone is arguing this point though, rather arguing why would there be an argument about it? + + + abe linkoln added: fountain (linkoln's 04 screenfull mix) <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-mi">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-mi</a> x.html <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m</a> ix.html> + + + Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> replied: > duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in > assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no > excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke. i was thinking about this discussion in relation to discussion on another list, a poetry list from britain. of course britain has a long and distinguished history concerning poetry, which i admire greatly. but it is not without difficulties for contemporary british writers. the weight of that history and achievement has tended, for most of the twentieth century and in our time, to make the culture perhaps too resistant to radical change in poetry. the brits are lively and innovative in many arts, but their poetry is weighted down by the strength of their past achievements. even if the writers themselves get out from under it, the culture is resistant to radical change in poetry. part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance of radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. progressive. similarly radical changes in poetry are greeted with different measures of acceptance in different cultures. brazil and argentina, for instance, tend to be strongly innovative and embrace radical change in the literary arts. britain not so. the usa and canada, well, middle ground. + + + abe linkoln added: etant donnes (abe's P1010665 jpg remix) <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/etant-donnes-abes-p1010665-jpg-rem">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/etant-donnes-abes-p1010665-jpg-rem</a> ix.html + + + M. River <mriver102@yahoo.com> replied: abe wrote: > fountain (linkoln's 04 screenfull mix) ><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m</a> > ix.html here is an oldie but a goodie <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com/websiteunseen/collect25.html">http://www.mteww.com/websiteunseen/collect25.html</a> + + + jimpunk <www@jimpunk.com> added: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jimpunk.com/Fountain.html">http://www.jimpunk.com/Fountain.html</a> + + + manik <manik@ptt.yu> added: Infantile fascination vs."Fountain",and no-grounded(wrong)explication about same show how easy "people"accept whatever is written.There's no self initiative,no research,only school fact .If we want to understand anything about Duchamp it's good to see circumstances,ambient,and finally process which could lied us to understand phenomena like "Ready-made".Cubism put surface on first plan,specially synthetic cubism with collage elements(newspapers,wood,tappets…).It was meter of day who is going to understand main consequences of that process.Duchamp was painter in that time.He made some pictures in*cubo-futurist* manner,but he was first who understood implications of surface+speed.He just let thing drop from canvas/surface,in his words:"Without any aesthetic valuation."He was slightly confused when he made first "reedy-made",because he,actually made composition/sculpture putting two thing together(chair&wheel)inspired probably with two potential of those things;chair=sitting,no mowed,and wheel=mowing."Roue de bicyclette",1913.was proto-ready-made-added!Next year(1914)Duchamp formalized his intuition clear in "Egouttoir".This is only,and one reedy-made ever made.Of curse it is monotheistic idea,but all other *ready-mades*where,actually reedy -mades-added."Fountain"was one of them(because signature,contextualization in NY.Dada exhibition…etc.),and it's far from "most important"of his work.People like kind of humor,ironic sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important art piece in XXcentury.Four year latter he paint "Tu m' ",and there you can see that he was concise about many-sided nature of surface.If you want to be closer to Duchamps ideology,we recommended Phyro(Greek philosopher,360-270 before Jesus,one of Duchamps favorite).Also it's not so bad to see next essays: Robert Lebel;"Marcel Duchamp", 1962, Michel Sanouiillet:"Marcel Duchamp and French Intelectual Tradition",1973 Werner Hofmann:"Grundlagen der modernrn Kunst",1978 Edward Ball&Robert Knafo:"The R.Mutt Dossier",1988 Hans Richter:"Kunst und Antikunst",1964 Willis Domingo"Meaning in the Art of Duchamp" Jorg Traeger:"Duchamp,Malewitsch und die Tradition des Bildes",1972 Dolf Oehler:"Himsehen,Himlagen:Fur eine Dynamisierung der Theorie der Avantgarde,Dargestellt Marcel Duchamp Fountain",1976 Etc. MANIK + + + Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> added: >> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they >>call it art.' Yes. There's not really any way around that one that doesn't involve ventriloquism. Manik's point about assisted readymades vs. readymades is pertinent as well. I think Duchamp needs to ask for a paternity test to be performed on modern art, especially neoconceptualism. + + + Jim Andrews replied: It may be important to point out that the most influential art world is between one's own ears. + + + t.whid replied: more on this from salon.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The most influential piece of modern art Something by Picasso or Matisse? No, just a humble urinal, according to a poll of 500 experts. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Charlotte Higgins Dec. 2, 2004  |  A humble porcelain urinal – reclining on its side and marked with a false signature – has been named the world's most influential piece of modern art, knocking Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse from their traditional positions of supremacy. Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain," created in 1917, has been interpreted in innumerable different ways, including as a reference to the female sexual parts. However, what is clear is the direct link between Duchamp's "readymade," as the artist called it, and the conceptual art that dominates today – Tracey Emin's "My Bed" being a prime example. According to art expert Simon Wilson, "the Duchampian notion that art can be made of anything has finally taken off. And not only about formal qualities, but about the 'edginess' of using a urinal and thus challenging bourgeois art." The Duchamp came out top in a survey of 500 artists, curators, critics and dealers commissioned by the sponsor of the Turner prize, Gordon's. Different categories of respondents chose markedly different works, with artists in particular plumping overwhelmingly for "Fountain." "It feels like there is a new generation out there saying, 'Cut the crap – Duchamp opened up modern art,'" said Wilson. He said that it was "something of a shock" that Pablo Picasso was not top, particularly since, he argued, the artist's cubist constructions of 1912 to 1914 were Duchamp's "jumping-off point." However, Picasso has not been totally erased: "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" and "Guernica" were second and fourth in the survey. Wilson said: "'Les Demoiselles' was the beginning of cubism, and cubism was the most influential formal innovation in modern art. This is the single work to which we can pin the origins of modern art." Of "Guernica" – the artist's unflinching depiction of the horrors of the Spanish civil war – Wilson said: "Picasso reestablished that art could be modern and still deal with historical events, which had been junked by impressionism." Andy Warhol's "Marilyn Diptych" – with its resonances of celebrity, death and tragedy – was named the third most influential work, and Matisse's "The Red Studio," the fifth. Extraordinarily, however, not a single artist put Matisse among his or her top choices. "Today's artists expect art to contain some social or political comment, even if that's very indirect," said Wilson. "Matisse said that his art was like an armchair into which one sinks at the end of the day – it's a sort of pure sensuousness that artists today don't warm to." And the rest of the top 10: 6) Joseph Beuys, "I Like America and America Likes Me," 7) Constantin Brancusi, "Endless Column," Jackson Pollock, "One: No. 31," 9) Donald Judd, "100 Untitled Works in Mill Aluminum" and 10) Henry Moore, "Reclining Figure" (1929). + + + Jim Andrews replied: journalism from salon.com on a poll commissioned by the sponsor of the Turner prize of art 'experts' on 'the most influential' artists. inquiring minds want to know, obviously. + + + M.River replied: > inquiring minds want to know, obviously. I'm not sure what 2,3,4 and 5 are but I'd take out #10 and put in Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills. (and then add jodi.org as #11)…but that's just my art taste. Make your own list of parents. + + + James Allan <james@teleportacia.org> added: I'd take out Henry Moore at #10 and put in "defenestration". Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2004 1. blog 2. incumbent 3. electoral 4. insurgent 5. hurricane 6. cicada 7. peloton 8. partisan 9. sovereignty 10. defenestration + + + M.River replied: ha. very good. defenestration.org + + + James Allan replied: If it was good enough for Yves Klein it's good enough for me. Should've shown Henry the window back in '28. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/museum09.jpg">http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/museum09.jpg</a> + + + abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> replied: "D'ailleurs, c'est ici qu'est l'air…" by jimpunk <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/dailleurs-cest-toujours-ici-quest-">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/dailleurs-cest-toujours-ici-quest-</a> lair.html "la boite en valise" by linkoln <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-en-valise-linkoln-mix.htm">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-en-valise-linkoln-mix.htm</a> l + + + jimpunk relied: Da ! <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jimpunk.com/xxx/aiRdeParis.html">http://www.jimpunk.com/xxx/aiRdeParis.html</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-3n-v4lise-remix-version-1">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-3n-v4lise-remix-version-1</a> .html <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jimpunk.com/LaBoite3nv4lise/Nudescendantunescalier/">http://www.jimpunk.com/LaBoite3nv4lise/Nudescendantunescalier/</a> + + + abe linkoln replied: abe selavy <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/abe-selavy.html">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/abe-selavy.html</a> L.H.O.O.Q. (linkoln vs. banksy 04 mix) <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooq-linkoln-vs-banksy-04-mix.htm">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooq-linkoln-vs-banksy-04-mix.htm</a> l + + + jimpunk replied: AnémiC:nema P4rt 1 - (popup de precis:on) rot0Relief N°1 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/an1.html">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/an1.html</a> + + + abe linkoln replied: linkoln and jimpunk quit remixing duchamp to go play yahoo chess <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/linkoln-and-jimpunk-quit-remixing">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/linkoln-and-jimpunk-quit-remixing</a>. html + + + Plasma Studii added: outa town, sorry if this is a late reply. jim andrews: >part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance >of radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. >progressive. i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions. but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status quou for years now. though the US also has a rich history, like writing in Britain, as you said. but assuming you are under 50, for most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art accept treated as a historical artifact. if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's the urinal thing that has me baffled.. it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and everyone's fine with it. if you tried using the word as an insult today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with "fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a cool shift. but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in hundreds of years, but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases, how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar. it may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at a positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals significance in art history. we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes. manik: >People like kind of humor,ironic >sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most >important art piece in XXcentury. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://plasmastudii.org/rorschach/rorschach.php">http://plasmastudii.org/rorschach/rorschach.php</a> + + + Jim Andrews replied: > i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is > fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions. > but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status > quou for years now. i like that. "the status quou". > though the US also has a rich history, like > writing in Britain, as you said. i didn't say that the US also has a rich history like writing in Britain, actually. English literature goes back at least to Chaucer in the fourteenth century (1300's). USAmerican literature goes back to Lawrence Sterne and his Tristam Shandy back in the eighteenth century (1700's). of course the two histories are intimately related (though separate), once USAmerican literature gets under way. and i admire both. > but assuming you are under 50, for > most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art > accept treated as a historical artifact. Really? I think we even see stuff from the sixties or seventies or even eighties treated as historical artifact, never mind stuff from duchamp's time. > if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that > would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's > the urinal thing that has me baffled.. > it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since > been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and > everyone's fine with it. the word is still loaded regardless of who uses it, whether it's fired at someone or as a warning shot around the feet. > if you tried using the word as an insult > today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with > "fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a > cool shift. reclaiming language does not result in the dissassembly of all the guns. it's more like the gun is used as a lamp, or something to spray cleaner fluid, or a swiffer handle etc., but some of them are still used as assault weapons. whether it fires bullets is a matter of what the intended victim sees in the gun: assault weapon or swiffer handle. but lots of people still try to use them as weapons, and lots of people still perceive them as weapons. but what this has to do with marcel duchamp is beyond me. > but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that > you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the > event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in > hundreds of years, i wouldn't go that far. > but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases, > how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much > more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar. i have no idea. > it may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at >a positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original > blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals > significance in art history. > we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather > than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes. what it criticizes has not gone away, plasma. nor will it. art is dead and has been for a long time. now it's the unholy ghost. it's a ghost of what it was. it's the ghost in the machine. that we can't do without. + + + jimpunk replied: /error/ L.H.O.O.Q.(rasée): internet Ready-made rectifié rem:x <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooqras-remx.html">http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooqras-remx.html</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 Kevin McGarry (kevin@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 9, number 48. 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>. Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the site is open to members and non-members alike. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +