<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: October 8, 2004<br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+note+<br />1. Francis Hwang: Some notes from the Director of Technology, September 2004<br /><br />+announcement+<br />2. Fion Ng: Microwave International Media Art Festival 2004 - PROXY<br />3. Pau Waelder: Announcing The Stunned Net Art Open<br /><br />+opportunity+<br />4. matthew fuller: Call for Participation : www.designtimeline.org<br />5. Richard Rinehart: New Media Faculty Position At UC Berkeley<br />6. Rodger john: Elsewhere Artist Collaborative: Updated Call: "Place to<br />Figure out Things."<br /><br />+work+<br />7. trashconnection: all rhizomers in one<br />8. andrew michael baron: all rhizomers in one, with links<br />9. Joseph DeLappe: The Great Debate: Battlefield Vietnam<br /><br />+comment+<br />10. bensyverson: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: [N]+semble RTP #27 by<br />Talan Memmott<br />11. bensyverson: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Tour of the Chicago<br />Technology Park by ryan griffis<br /><br />+thread+<br />12. Liza Sabater, bensyverson, curt cloninger, Rob Myers, ryan griffis, Pall<br />Thayer, Steve Kudlak, Jess Loseby, Francis Hwang, t.whid, jm Haefner, Eric<br />Dymond, Alexander Galloway, Jim Andrews, ~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~: Thinking of<br />art, transparency and social technology<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />1.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org><br />Subject: Some notes from the Director of Technology, September 2004<br /><br />Yeah, so, it's been a while since I did one of these. Sorry about that.<br />Anyway, here are a few of the bigger features that have been added to<br />the Rhizome website recently:<br /><br />1. RSS feeds<br />If you go to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/syndicate">http://rhizome.org/syndicate</a>, you'll see a list of RSS<br />feeds. We've had the Net Art News feed for a while now; they are now<br />joined by a Rare feed that you can use to preview published texts on<br />the site, and an Artworks feed that notifies you of new artworks on the<br />side. Feel free to use these feeds however you like. There are more on<br />the way, too!<br /><br />2. Artwork announcing<br />Now when new artworks are added to the ArtBase, an email is sent<br />automatically to the mailing list, too, so you can keep abreast of<br />what's being added.<br /><br />3. Some anti-spam tweaks<br />Some inquisitive users reported that a few crafty spambots were finding<br />out how to use the Raw list to send out spam, so I Googled a lot until<br />I found out a bizarro majordomo hack that prevents this from happening.<br />Anyway, it's stopped now, so thanks to my effort you should be getting<br />only 99 spam emails a day instead of 100.<br /><br />Francis Hwang<br />Director of Technology<br />Rhizome.org<br />phone: 212-219-1288x202<br />AIM: francisrhizome<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />2.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: Fion Ng <ngyc666@yahoo.com><br />Subject: Microwave International Media Art Festival 2004 - PROXY<br /><br />Hong Kong, 5 October, 2004 â?? Struggle, wonder, surprise. These truthful<br />moments define the essence of the Microwave International Media Art Festival<br />(MIMAF) 2004 â?? Proxy, a burgeoning annual media art event that is opening<br />at 5:00pm on Saturday October 30th at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong City Hall,<br />Low Block (5, Edinburgh Place, Central, Hong Kong).<br /><br />Living in the globalize information age, the new technology of<br />telecommunication like cell phone and global positioning system brace for<br />the new order of the world. On one hand, these technologies cause<br />convenience to our communication and worldwide access of information. But on<br />the other hand, they are used for surveillance and even terror attack.<br />â??Proxyâ?? is created to explore the telematic culture. From 31 October to<br />16 November, over 28 artists from around the world will exhibit 21<br />installation and net art works at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong City Hall with<br />2-day seminars on 30 October and 1 November designed to stimulate discussion<br />and provide a platform for the expression of new media art.<br /><br />The Festival will also feature the immense talent of local young artists and<br />teenagers in HIGHBAND exhibition at Hong Kong Film Archive Exhibition Hall,<br />during the installation and net art exhibition.<br /><br />In addition to the exhibitions, we are proud to invite Christopher P.<br />Csikszentmihalyi and Jeremi Sudol, Computing Culture Group, MIT and Casey<br />Reas, co-founder of â??Processingâ?? freeware, to hold 2 artist-in-residence<br />workshops on 28-29 October and 2 November.<br /><br />Dazzling in style and content, the works showcased in our Video Screening<br />programmes: â??Fascinated and Touchedâ??, â??Wave After Wave of New Japanese<br />Animatorsâ??, â??Chinese Video Feastâ??, â??Urban Architexturesâ?? and<br />â??Video Is Interesting, but Deadâ?? are an eclectic collection of renowned<br />artistsâ?? video works including the Chinese artists in this year Shanghai<br />Biennale. Guest curators Hanspeter Ammann (Switzerland) and Thomas Munz of<br />Transmediale, Berlin (Germany) will meet the audience in the after-screening<br />discussion. Other curators include Taruto Fuyama (Japan), Wu Meichun (China)<br />and Videotage (HK). The Screenings will run on 3, 19-20 November at Cinema,<br />Hong Kong Film Archive.<br /><br />On 20 November we will present a music and video performance "Electron" at<br />Habitus as our closing event. Featuring artists include: Pixel Toy; ST<br />Demos; SYMPOSIUM 4H; Teoh + Jean Sebastien Lallemand + Wilson Cheung;<br />Vibration + Emergency LAB; Kar-Fai Samson Young + Carlyshemoss + Remus Ng<br />Siufat.<br /><br />Featuring artists:<br />Masaki Fujihata (Japan), â??Field-Work @ Alsaceâ?? (2002);<br />Computing Culture Group, Media Lab, MIT (US), â??Computing Culture Groupâ??<br />(2004); <br />Christa Sommerer & Laurent Mignonneau (Austria/France), â??Mobile<br />Feelingsâ?? (2002-2003);<br />Casey Reas (US), â??Seoul A & Bâ?? (2004);<br />Bundith Phunsombatlert (Thailand), â??Path of Illusionâ?? (2002-2004);<br />Golan Levins (US), "Dialtones (A Telesymphony)" (DVD) (2002);<br />Marko Peljhan(Republic of Slovenia), "Makrolab-UNTP with TRUST-SYSTEM 77"<br />(1994-2004);<br />Bryan Chung (Hong Kong), â??Be a Hong Kong Patriot, part 2: The Fuzzy<br />Wankerâ?? (2004); <br />Christopher Lau & Kar Fai Samson Young (Hong Kong), â??Ritual Machineâ??<br />(2004); <br />Net art curated by Casey Reas:<br />Ben Rubin, Mark Hansen (US), Listening Post. 2002-2004;<br />Peter Cho (US), Money Plus;<br />Schoenerwissen/OfCD (DE),Minitasking. 2002-2004;<br />Josh On (NZ, US), They Rule. 2001-2004;<br />Cory Arcangel (US), Data Diaries. 2002;<br />Jonah Brucker-Cohen, Mike Bennett (US,IR), BumpList;<br />Nicolas Clauss, Jean-Jacques Birgé, Didier Silhol (FR), Somnambules. 2003;<br />Lia (AT), Re-Move. 1999-2004;<br />James Patterson (CA), Presstube. 2004;<br />David Crawford (US, SE), Stop Motion Studies. 2002-2004;<br />Susan Collins (UK), Fenlandia. 2004;<br />NullPointer aka Tom Betts, Joe Gilmore (UK), rand()%. 2004;<br />HIGHBAND exhibition:<br />The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Theatre Lighting & Sound<br />Department, â??The Discovery of Light and Soundâ?? (2004);<br />Derick Hui,â??What You See Is Not Thereâ?? (2004);<br />Ko Kam Hon, Yu Kai Wood, Yu Wing Yi, â??CuteBoy Gadgetâ?? (2004);<br />Ben Leung, Ken Liu, Moon Wang, Edward Tse, â??Wilsonâ?? (2004); and<br />â??Selections of Robot Design (Primary and Secondary School)â?? by Hong Kong<br />Robotic Olympic Association.<br /><br />Videotage provides free guided tours and talks for a full introduction of<br />the works featured at the MIMAF exhibition at Exhibition Hall, Hong Kong<br />City Hall target for students and teachers. The tour will be conducted in<br />Cantonese and lasts for about an hour.<br /><br />Apart from the workshops, video screenings and â??Electronâ??, all events<br />are free admission.<br /><br />MIMAF2004 is presented by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.<br />Co-organised by Microwave Co Ltd and Videotage. Supported by Hong Kong Arts<br />Development Council, sponsored by School of Creative Media, City University<br />of Hong Kong, German Projectors Group, All Nippon Airways, Austrian<br />Consulate General, Hong Kong, CREAM Magazine, Consulate General of<br />Switzerland, Goethe-Institut Hong Kong, Habitus, Hong Kong Arts Centre, Pro<br />Helvita, Arts Council of Switzerland.<br /><br />Founded by Videotage in 1996, MIMAF is dedicated to the development of<br />artists of independent vision and the exhibition of their new work. Since<br />its inception, the Festival has grown into an internationally recognized<br />resource for media and other artists. The Festival is held annually and is<br />considered the premier showcase for Hong Kong and international media art<br />works.<br /><br />###<br />Official website: www.microwavefest.net / www.lcsd.gov.hk/fp<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships<br />purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow<br />participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded<br />communities.) Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more<br />information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel@Rhizome.org.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />Date: 10.08.04<br />From: Pau Waelder <pau@sicplacitum.com><br />Subject: Announcing The Stunned Net Art Open<br /><br />The Stunned Net Art Open<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.netartopen.org">http://www.netartopen.org</a><br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stunned.org/netartopen">http://www.stunned.org/netartopen</a><br /><br />This is the third year of the Net Art Open which was previously<br />presented as part of the Irish Museum of Modern Art.com project.  Once<br />again we have retained the central concept of the Net Art Open, an<br />exhibition of net art in which every submission is accepted,  to provide<br />an exhibition free of curatorial bias which presents a true snapshot of<br />the state of the art today.<br /><br />In previous years the exhibition was, in some ways, a victim of it's own<br />success with so many entries that it was hard, even with the best will,<br />in the world to see every entry. So this year in recognition of these<br />problems and of the changes in the way people surf the web  we have<br />radically changed the format of the exhibition  to focus more attention<br />on each individual work. In what we think is an internet first the 2004<br />Net Art Open exhibition will be blogged, one work at a time, with a new<br />work every three days. RSS feeds will also be published so that viewers<br />can follow the exhibition with newsfeed readers.<br /><br />The result is the 2004 Stunned Net Art Open,  net art from over 70<br />artists, an exhibition which presents a refreshing snapshot of the<br />strength and diversity of the net art movement today.<br /><br />The Stunned Net Art Open<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.netartopen.org">http://www.netartopen.org</a><br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stunned.org/netartopen">http://www.stunned.org/netartopen</a><br /><br />More information from Conor McGarrigle<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stunned.org">http://www.stunned.org</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: matthew fuller <fuller@xs4all.nl><br />Subject: Call for Participation : www.designtimeline.org<br /><br />Call for Participation<br />www.designtimeline.org<br />We would like to invite you to contribute to the online collective<br />web design history timeline. This project wants to map your<br />encounters with design for the World Wide Web. It is part of a<br />larger project entitled A Decade of Webdesign that includes an<br />international conference in Amsterdam, January 21-22, 2005.<br /><br />Open History Timeline<br />www.designtimeline.org is an 'open research' website/database into<br />the first decade of web design. The online forum is a visual and<br />textual timeline generated out of a self-customizable questionnaire.<br />Using a custom content management system the site will allows:<br />. Users to add images, comments and links, making a collective<br />history of webdesign as it developed. Such elements might include<br />histories of their own first homepage; the first use of a technology;<br />original html code; reminiscences of key designers, innovators,<br />critics and technologists.<br />. Using a question-based interface users can write their own<br />questions and respond to those of others. All questions entered are<br />available, ensuring that no one set of views or way of writing<br />predominates.<br />. Multi-lingual use.<br /><br />The site is designed for use for anyone involved in web design over<br />the past ten years. It is also ideal as a simple structured tool<br />which can be used for both research and teaching. This project is<br />intended to be of interest to a broad range of disciplines from<br />design to computer science and from history to sociology. If you are<br />a teacher we would like to invite you to consider integrating this<br />site into your curriculum, as a piece of independent research for<br />students, as a set workshop, or as the basis of a sustained project.<br /><br />The project starts now and continues until the end of march 2005, at<br />which point it will be archived. Please - make history!<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.designtimeline.org">http://www.designtimeline.org</a><br /><br />Conference: A Decade of Web Design (www.decadeofwebdesign.org)<br /><br />Until recently web design discourses have been dominated by a<br />frantic, market driven search for the latest and coolest. The ongoing<br />media buzz around 'demo design' has prevented serious scholarship<br />from happening.<br />Technical innovations such as frames, flash, WAP and 3G have<br />dominated the field. Until 2001 a substantial part of the sector's<br />activities was geared towards instruction and consultancy. The dotcom<br />crash and IT slump have cleared the field-but not necessary in<br />positive ways. Due to budget cuts firms now believe they can do<br />without design altogether. Instead of asking ourselves what the Next<br />Big Thing will be, we firmly believe that future design can be found<br />in its recent past that offers a rich mix of utopian concepts and<br />undigested controversies.<br />In short, these ten years of web design has seen design change as<br />much as it has seen the impact of a new form of global media. We want<br />to celebrate this and to use a consideration and testing of the<br />recent past to provide a platform for thinking about what is to come.<br />In this, the conference will be unprecedented, the first event of its<br />kind.<br /><br />Sessions for the event will be:<br />-Histories of Web Design<br />What do social, technical and cultural historians propose as ways to make an<br />account of the last decade?<br />-Meaning Structures<br />As automated site-design becomes increasingly important the history of the<br />interweaving of technology and culture up to the point of semantic<br />engineering is mapped out<br />-Modeling the User<br />Creativity and usability have often been set up as the two key poles of web<br />design. This panel asks instead for a more sophisticated narrative about<br />the change in understanding of user needs and desires over the last ten<br />years<br /> - Digital Work<br />Following on from the Digital Work seminar this panel brings together key<br />observers and critics of the changing patterns of work in web design along<br />with designers<br />- Distributed Design<br />The web amplified an explosion on non-professional design. This panel will<br />ask what happens to design once it becomes a non-specialist network process.<br /><br />Confirmed Speakers<br />Michael Indergaard, John Chris Jones, Olia Lialina, Peter Luining,<br />Peter Lunenfeld, Geke<br />van der Wal, Franziska Nori, Danny O'Brien (NTK), Steven Pemberton,<br />Helen Petrie, Rosalind Gill, Adrian McKenzie, Schoenerwissen/OfCD,<br />Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales, etc. Further speakers are yet to be confirmed.<br /><br />Organization<br />Media Design Research, Piet Zwart Institute, Rotterdam,<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/">http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/</a><br />Institute for Network Cultures, Hogeschool van Amsterdam<br />Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam<br />Register for the conference by sending an email to info@networkcultures.org.<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu><br />Subject: New Media Faculty Position At UC Berkeley<br /><br />Center for New Media, University of California at Berkeley.<br />History & Theory of New Media.<br />Rank open, effective July 1, 2005, pending budgetary approval.<br /><br />In the context of Berkeleyâ??s new Center for New Media, the successful<br />candidate will develop courses, pursue interdisciplinary research<br />initiatives, and help lead UC Berkeley in New Media studies. Teaching and<br />research interests should include the historical contexts and theoretical<br />framing of New Media, including the critical, cultural, and social<br />assessment of New Media production and consumption processes. Applicants<br />should demonstrate substantial background in one or more of the following<br />fields: art history, history of photography, media history, film studies,<br />and visual culture. They should also demonstrate broad knowledge of<br />critical theory in the humanities, significant command of theoretical and<br />technical issues in contemporary new media, and a record of engagement with<br />technologists, designers, artists, and/or social scientists in new media<br />studies. Special consideration will be given to applicants with strong<br />leadership abilities. The successful candidate will be appointed in a<br />relevant department or departments; possible primary departments include<br />History of Art, Film Studies Program (a division of Department of Rhetoric),<br />and the School of Information Management and Systems. Participation on the<br />Executive Committee of the Center for New Media is expected. Applications<br />must include a C.V.; a letter describing the candidateâ??s background and<br />interests, including brief descriptions of possible courses; a one-page<br />statement outlining a vision for interdisciplinary scholarship in history<br />and theory of new media in the context of interdisciplinary new media<br />studies; two recent essay-length publications or samples of<br />work-in-progress; and names and full contact information for three<br />recommenders. Female and minority candidates are strongly encouraged to<br />apply. <br /><br />Application Deadline: December 1, 2004. Mail to: Whitney Davis, Chair,<br />Department of History of Art and Director, Film Studies Program, Doe Library<br />416, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 94720-6020. The<br />University of California is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action<br />Employer.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships<br />purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow<br />participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded<br />communities.) Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more<br />information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel@Rhizome.org.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: Rodger john <greensboroart@yahoo.com><br />Subject: Elsewhere Artist Collaborative: Updated Call: "Place to Figure out<br />Things." <br /><br />ELSEWHERE, art processes re-invent Art contexts.<br /> (Interpret the SPLACE thinking to itself)<br /><br /> Dear eyes right at origin,<br /><br />Elsewhere Artist Collaborative, a conceptual artists space in Greensboro,<br />NC, is seeking journeypeople to pursue artistic creations and criticism in a<br />contextually interpreted and designed environment.<br /><br />Participating in a residency-like program, Journeypeople will be provided<br />access to a 12,000 sq. ft. converted thrift store (stuck in a locational<br />palindrome). Artists are expected to integrate the plethora of 70 years of<br />thrift resources (toys, furniture, books, clothing, fabric, etc. etc. etc.)<br />or their experience at Elsewhere into the content (subject or object) of<br />their work. The objects within the space do not permanently leave the space,<br />providing for the exploration of the potential for a fixed but transforming<br />set of objects. Elsewhere artists explore traditional and emerging media<br />and media fusion, representational possibilities, and<br />community/communication models.<br /><br />Elsewhereâ??s non-commercial museum-type space is a constantly reflexive and<br />evolving environment where artwork serves as dialogue and dialogue systems<br />become artwork. Re-contextualized objects become the medium of expression<br />and response between participants. Located in Greensboro, NCâ??s downtown,<br />historic district, the experience of southern America offers a backdrop to<br />Elsewhereâ??s conceptual, artistic and intellectual realm. Elsewhere houses<br />a gallery/orientation center, press office, studio, kitchen, performance<br />venue, library, fabric workshopâ??all installation pieces in themselves<br />which serve as interactive environments that enable artists to comment on,<br />discuss, and recreate traditional art, social, and cultural institutions.<br />Artists are encouraged to redesign space and its accompaniments (objects)<br />for a contextual artistic experiment that exposes process as art form.<br />Elsewhere seeks innovative creators that are striving to apply their work<br />and ideas to a large-scale project that cultivates individual initiative<br />within a community of makers.<br /> <br /> Toys are people too.<br /><br /> Journeypeople are needed to engage projects: spatial development and<br />construction, documentation via still and video photography, fashion design,<br />interior design and architecture, graphic design, magazine and newspaper<br />publishing run in the press office, archiving, research, educational<br />programming and design, business initiatives, art administration, and<br />artistic pursuits in traditional and emerging art forms. After participating<br />in the community for a week, Journeypeople submit documentable proposals for<br />independent or collaborative projects. Elsewhere provides a network of local<br />artists and students to connect journeypeople with free or inexpensive<br />housing options. Elsewhere offers affordable meals through a food co-op,<br />artistic access to the seemingly infinite resources, customizable space<br />within which to work, and involvement in a community of artists all speaking<br />to and interacting within a post-modern theme. Journeypeople may also be<br />involved in the larger conceptual project that includes community<br />interfacing programs and urban planning issues. While art objects must<br />remain within the space and are subject to further conversion, artists have<br />the opportunity to substantially build or augment a portfolio while<br />exploring their media and contributing to an collaborative artistic<br />endeavor.<br /><br />Those interested in the residency-style program should contact George Scheer<br />(Collaborative Director) and/or Stephanie Sherman (Conceptual<br />Director/Casting Director) at wanderingzoo@mac.com or 336.549.5555.<br />Internships and volunteer opportunities are also available. We will respond<br />with a brief application process to gauge artistic synchronicity between the<br />individual and project as a whole. Those interested in renting the resources<br />for artistic productions or collaborations between Elsewhere and other<br />organizations should also contact George. Elsewhere, a 501©3<br />organization, is funded in part by a grant from Greensboroâ??s United Arts<br />Council. For more information, see www.homepage.mac.com/wanderingzoo.<br /><br />Signed, the understated<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />Date: 10.02.04<br />From: trashconnection <www@trashconnection.com><br />Subject: all rhizomers in one<br /><br />all rhizomers in one - portrait gallery<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html">http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html</a><br /> <br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux<br />server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per<br />month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP<br />account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.net/your_account_name">http://rhizome.net/your_account_name</a>). Details at:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/services/1.php">http://rhizome.org/services/1.php</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8.<br /><br />Date: 10.04.04<br />From: andrew michael baron <baron@parsons.edu><br />Subject: all rhizomers in one, with links<br /><br />All Rhizomers in one, with links to bios, click this link:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rocketboom.com/rhizome/">http://www.rocketboom.com/rhizome/</a><br />Simple php script below:<br /><?php<br />$handle = opendir('img/');<br />if ($handle) {<br />while (false !== ($file = readdir($handle))) {<br />$filepart = str_replace(".gif", " ", $file);<br />print "<a href=<a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/member.rhiz?user_id=$filepart">http://rhizome.org/member.rhiz?user_id=$filepart</a><br />target=_blank ><img<br />src=<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/directory/icons/$file">http://www.rhizome.org/directory/icons/$file</a>></a>\n"; }<br />closedir($handle);<br /> }<br />?> <br />trashconnection wrote:<br />Dear Curt,<br /><br />you better try to improve this:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://boijmans.kennisnet.nl/onderw/thema/graphim/b95007.jpg">http://boijmans.kennisnet.nl/onderw/thema/graphim/b95007.jpg</a><br /><br />cc> the next step is to have each image link to that person's rhizome bio<br />page.<br />cc> _<br /><br /> <br />all rhizomers in one - portrait gallery<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html">http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/gallery/img.html</a><br /> <br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />9.<br /><br />Date: 10.08.04<br />From: Joseph DeLappe <delappe@unr.nevada.edu><br />Subject: The Great Debate: Battlefield Vietnam<br /><br />Announcing: Battlefield Vietnam: The Great Debate<br /><br />On Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, artist Joseph DeLappe re-enacted the first,<br />2004 Presidential Debate between Senator John Kerry and President George<br />Bush in the PC online first person shooter game, "Battlefield Vietnam".<br /><br />The performance/re-enactment involved typing into "Battlefield Vietnam"<br />online the entire transcript from the first presidential debate. DeLappe<br />switched his profile, or name, during the gameplay from "George Bush" to<br />"John Kerry", as needed, to recreate, through the instant, text messaging<br />system used in the online game, the entire 14,000+ words. The transcript,<br />used in printed form from the NYtimes on the web, were typed into the online<br />gameplay over the course of an eight hour session, visiting multiple game<br />servers in the US and abroad.<br /><br />"John Kerry" or "George Bush" were randomly assigned by the host servers to<br />either the US, South Vietnamese Army or the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) teams<br />during the numerous online game sessions, each lasting from 2 minutes to 1/2<br />hour. Each game session featured between 14 and 31 other online gamers.<br />There was much reaction from the other players during the re-enactment: from<br />righteous outrage to genuine political dialogue to being kicked several<br />times from multiple servers. The experience was thoroughly exhausting, truly<br />a monumental effort at absurdist, online political theater.<br /><br />Please visit my website to view a few screen shots and some composites of<br />the text messages from the actual performance online: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.delappe.ws">http://www.delappe.ws</a><br /><br />On Saturday, October 4th, DeLappe will re-enact the second "Town Hall" style<br />presidential debate in a piece entitled: "Town Hall: Jedi Knight Outcast",<br />using the "Starwars: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast" online game as a platform<br />for recreating this second presidential debate. DeLappe is considering<br />re-enacting the third debate, focused on domestic issues, in the "Sims<br />Online" game.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />10.<br /><br />Date: 10.06.04<br />From: bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com><br />Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: [N]+semble RTP #27 by Talan<br />Memmott<br /><br />*** I promised to practice what I preach about injecting criticality to<br />RAW, so I think I'll comment on a few ArtBase additions as they come.<br />Keep in mind that I'm no practiced artCritic, and my criticism is<br />designed not to condescend or tear ppl down, but rather to spark<br />[debate/discussion]. ***<br /><br />After reading Talan Memmott's bio, I'm almost ashamed to say that this<br />is my first encounter with his work, so I took some time to explore his<br />previous [work/writing/praxis]. Much of Memmott's other work uses text<br />extensively, often in almost accidentally poetic arrangements,<br />sometimes swimming in [diagrammatic/cut-up] visuals, everything<br />occasionally converging to sublime effect. When his work is not<br />impenetrable, it recalls and expands on a sort of vintage early-90s<br />embodiment of HyperText that caused so much feather-ruffling then as<br />the first formal innovation in literature since the cut-up method. In<br />this spirit, most if not all of his work refuses to address the network<br />directly, and some of his pieces are [navigated/operated] in a guided<br />fashion, teasing the [user/reader/viewer] with the illusion of<br />[control/interactivity] during linear segments. I found the majority of<br />his work to be frustrating, curious and [encoded/encrusted] in an alien<br />alternate-reality literature – in other words, I enjoyed it a great<br />deal.<br /><br />So it was with some confusion that I viewed [N]+semble RTP #27, which<br />aside from its humorously baroque introScreens is devoid of text.<br />Rather, as a "Recombinant Tone Poem," the work takes its cue from the<br />musicTheory idea of a "tone poem," (also known as a "symphonic poem")<br />which apparently [was/is] a short [symphonic/orchestral] piece which<br />takes its cue from (or is supplemented by) literature, painting, or<br />really anything non-musical. The DNA reference "recombinant" in the<br />title might suggest some fancy genetic algorithms behind the curtain,<br />but in reality, the piece is relatively straightforward. Balls revolve<br />around three instruments, and by moving the mouse over these balls, a<br />short ["phrase"/riff] on the instrument (chosen by random from a few<br />pre-recorded samples) is played. By rapidly moving the mouse, one can<br />generate a mild cacophony.<br /><br />In the spirit of a conventional tone poem, perhaps [N]+semble RTP #27<br />takes its cue from a specific external [concept/work], but if this is<br />the case I was not able to discern the reference. Maybe, as a<br />CyberPunkPoet, Memmott's reference is simply poetry or CyberPoetry. In<br />any event, the work comes across as rather thin; unlike the body of his<br />work, RTP #27 seems to be almost purely formalist, and worse, not even<br />very aesthetically pleasing (at least to these eyes&&ears). As a<br />soundToy, RTP #27 didn't hold my attention for longer than a commercial<br />break. In all fairness, however, I am operating without the knowledge<br />of how this piece fits into Memmott's overall practice; for all I know,<br />this is a technical sketch for a more ambitious project, a toe-dip in<br />the poolverse of soundToys, or actually more layered in meaning than I<br />realize.<br /><br />- ben<br />On Oct 5, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Rhizome.org wrote:<br /><br />> Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase …<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?27750">http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?27750</a><br />><br />><br />> + [N]+semble RTP #27 +<br />> + Talan Memmott +<br />><br />> [N]+semble RTP #27 is a recombinant tone poem for flute, vibraphone,<br />> and tuba created in Flash. The piece is an interactive arrangement<br />> instrument. As the user moves the cursor around the interface, sound<br />> files of short musical phrase are activated and another file is<br />> randomly selected.<br />> The musical phrases are an original composition, but the arrangement<br />> is of the phrases is left to user interaction with the application.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />11.<br /><br />Date: 10.07.04<br />From: bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com><br />Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Tour of the Chicago Technology<br />Park by ryan griffis<br /><br />*** I promised to practice what I preach about injecting criticality to<br />RAW, so I'll be continuing to comment on a few ArtBase additions as<br />they come ***<br /><br />I love critical filters, so this work is right up my alley. Like a P2P<br />MP3 armChair filmCritic DVD commentaryTrack, the Tour of the Chicago<br />Technology Park exists as an unsanctioned separate-but-equal layer of<br />information over the mundane. The information itself is rich but never<br />didactic, illustrating the widely varied hystorical threads that are<br />converging in the Chicago biotech industry, and looking forward to the<br />results of that convergence. As a multiMedia project, it's available<br />online as text, maps and audio, and was performed as a guided tour<br />during version04 in Chicago.<br /><br />I haven't taken the audio to the actual site, but the fact that this<br />project exists as an audioTour at all is rather tongue-in-cheek, so<br />maybe the "full" experience is not required. The audio is peppered with<br />resampled CTA sounds, and the text of the audio comes from various<br />sources, but the voice-over itself is inhumanly straightforward (it's<br />voiceSynthesis software). The synthesized voices are a little grating<br />at times – almost trance-like – but luckily, the [gender/style] of<br />the "speaker" is changed every couple of minutes.<br /><br />The Tour of the CTP presents an interesting alternative to the endless<br />volley of text in activist emails and websites, and in the process<br />finds a nice way to [access/understand/approach] the community it<br />examines. It instantly made me consider possibilities for expansion;<br />for example, imagine a "channel" or application for a nearFuture<br />iPod/cellphone that assesses your position via GPS and provides running<br />commentary for your location, perhaps with suggestions of other places<br />of interest. One could walk around the city, soaking in physically<br />situated information. Imagine guided activistDayTrips, or live<br />boycottSubscriptions that direct you to alternative establishments…<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />On Oct 5, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Rhizome.org wrote:<br /><br />> Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase …<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?28147">http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?28147</a><br />><br />><br />> + Tour of the Chicago Technology Park +<br />> + ryan griffis +<br />><br />> How is corporate biotechnology shaping the spaces we live in? The<br />> Travel Office's tour of the Chicago Technology Park is a guided audio<br />> and web-based experience that places the city's current investment in<br />> the "new economy" within the historical, and ongoing, practices of<br />> social engineering through urban planning. A story of spatial eugenics<br />> emerges out of the juxtaposition of texts and statements from<br />> disparate sources that include Official state and city press releases,<br />> corporate documents and activist archives.<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />12.<br />Date: 10/05/04-10/08/04<br />From: Liza Sabater <blogdiva@culturekitchen.com>, bensyverson<br /><rhizome@bensyverson.com>, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com>, Rob Myers<br /><robmyers@mac.com>, ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com>, Pall Thayer<br /><palli@pallit.lhi.is>, Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>, Jess<br />Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com>, Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org>, t.whid<br /><twhid@twhid.com>, jm Haefner <j.haefner@sbcglobal.net>, Eric Dymond<br /><e.dymond@sympatico.ca>, Alexander Galloway <galloway@nyu.edu>, Jim Andrews<br /><jim@vispo.com>, "~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~" <llacook@yahoo.com><br />Subject: Thinking of art, transparency and social technology<br /><br />Liza Sabater <blogdiva@culturekitchen.com> posted:<br /><br />Should we consider Bill Gates the Bin Laden of net art?<br /><br />The problem with Java –at least in some of the Head Potato's work– is that<br />because it works at the hardware level, it presents a whole 'nother level of<br />problems. So the clocking will be fine on a Dell but fucked up on a HP.<br />There will be flicker –and a horrid, ugly flicker– one screen, but not the<br />other. And all of this varies from one version of Windows to another. Of<br />course, some artworks will look and even work completely different in a Mac.<br /><br />The Johns (Simon and Klima) have it right when they decided to control both<br />the hardware and software. The time wasted banging heads on a keyboard and<br />cursing at Gates could probably be used optimizing or even building<br />"signature" hardware. I personally believe if you are going to sell software<br />art at a gallery, that's the way to go. BTW, even JODI are shlepping their<br />own hardware these days.<br /><br />But let me bring another issue to the table, one I think other net creatives<br />have brought to light pretty well. It's the issue of TRANSPARENCY.<br /><br />Artists have always kept notes, some way or another, for their ideas and<br />process. But it is not until they are dead (or made an offer they cannot<br />refuse) that people can take a peek at them. If ever. But not just artist as<br />in Art makers. Most people involved in creative work will keep some kind of<br />record of their discoveries and obstacles. The problem, again, is that these<br />are mostly kept tucked away in private libraries or bedroom drawers.<br /><br />I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond their<br />immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not even the<br />people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting institutions and<br />the like) understand the difference between creating your own metasoftware<br />in Java so you can create software art versus a person who gets their hands<br />on Flash and makes an animation. To this day I find myself saying at art<br />openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier is not an animation. It's software<br />creating the art." To which they most inevitably get the "deer in the<br />headlights" look on their faces. Ugh.<br /><br />MTAA was interviewed for Petit Mort and it's worth the reading (great pics<br />of the sexy beasts and a fantabulous one of EndNode AKA Printer Tree). This<br />is the part that mostly caught my attention:<br /><br />I¹ve notice that your updating of art is similar to the way corporations are<br />updating their services these days; for example banks make you transfer<br />funds, make you fill out forms, make you find customer service, and<br />sometimes even make you responsible for their quality control. Technology<br />now a day has passed on a lot of duties to the customer. It has really<br />become a self-service type of system. And although this would seem like cost<br />cutting measures on the way they do business, we still don't see a decrease<br />in their fees or cost of their products or services. It is helping them save<br />money I¹m sure, but as consumer we are loosing our time in performing their<br />services. Is that shift what you had in mind when you started these updates?<br />TIM: We never spoke about it, but I definitely considered that being a<br />change in the way the people interact online -a lot of the labor has been<br />passed back to you.<br />MARK: There are different concepts in our work, like when you think of the<br />computer tree, which is basically a stage that we built for people online to<br />perform on, it's trying to figure out a different audience relationship. A<br />lot of what net art is interested in is the communication back and forth,<br />the net being the space in-between, so the printer tree in some ways is also<br />the space in-between. With this tree, it¹s audience, and some of the other<br />things we¹ve done is trying to separate and move that relation ship between<br />performance and viewer just slightly so that the relationship becomes a<br />little fuzzier. I don¹t know if people need to know that when they see the<br />piece to understand the relationship.<br /> <br />[ The whole article is at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.petitemort.org/issue02/18/">http://www.petitemort.org/issue02/18/</a> ]<br /><br />This is an AMAZING insight. For one, I feel that one of the interesting<br />failures of net art has been its inability to communicate OUTSIDE of its<br />immediate clique. Not even people in the art world know or have even heard<br />of net art / software art as we discuss it here in Rhizome. To most people<br />NA / SA is what happens when you photoshop photography or make a video and<br />put it on the net. <br /><br />So without even knowing it, MTAA has hit it over the head. For the one part,<br />the technology used in net/software art –from the computers to the software<br />or even the coding language– passes unto you the onus of R&D, QA, and<br />usability (we're not even touching cost). The technologies of canvases,<br />stretchers, brushes, pigments, hammers and nails do not need any of those<br />added costs to the process of art making. It's completely the opposite with<br />anything involving digital technology.<br /><br />This is apparent with computers and software but what about the other art<br />"corporations"? <br /><br />Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the market"<br />as corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art is about the<br />object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of making an art "object"<br />out of what is basically electricity, falls unto you as well. So you find<br />yourself in a situation in which you've just built from the ground up a<br />meta-software that makes more software that is then what we call "software<br />art", but nobody –not even your peers– now about it because you've been<br />focused on showing the final object and not the process. And because you've<br />spent all that time on the art as object motif, your work –because it moves<br />on a screen– is still being seen by the audience immediately outside of the<br />net/software art clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves.<br />You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the<br />"proven" art forms, why should people understand what your work is about?<br /><br />Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as a<br />space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most have<br />not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is Rhizome and<br />all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw into your site and<br />this is what each and every one of you should be doing. Let the flaming<br />begin. There, I have said it.<br /><br />I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art process<br />can create is the only way to not just push your work forward, but to bring<br />to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly pursue.<br /><br />The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They are<br />processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites should not<br />be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as well; places where<br />each artist can reveal their work and play, their expertise and discoveries,<br />their trials and tribulations.<br /><br />Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words.<br /><br />Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social<br />technologies into artists sites. And not just the tech but the practices of<br />communication as well. We need to make your sites as dynamic as your art<br />process. Why? By not doing it you are missing out on the opportunity of<br />connecting with peers in other net cultures who, may not be artists but have<br />the answers to your questions. Or you may miss the opportunity of having one<br />more piece of information ready and available for your future audience to<br />read and learn more about you and your process as an artist. Or who knows<br />what other things are in store.<br /><br />It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and quite<br />frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because<br />software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations, never<br />fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a video or slides<br />of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are working with old<br />paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time do not have the<br />"right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware" to run most<br />net/software art in the first place. So they go with what they think will be<br />easy for them to use to judge the work –misunderstandings and hilarity<br />ensues. UGH. <br /><br />I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato to<br />post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the machines.<br />Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That sort of thing. I'm<br />even fixing to have guest writers write about their favorite pieces… And<br />in due time to raise resources for new projects.<br /><br />I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life<br />conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See what<br />opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find out what<br />happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook to salon, all<br />in one swoop of technology.<br /><br />Any takers? This blogmother is ready to reproduce :)<br /><br />Cheers, <br />l i z a <br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 5, 2004, at 2:11 AM, Liza Sabater wrote:<br /><br /> > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing<br /> > social technologies into artists sites. And not just the tech but<br /> > the practices of communication as well. We need to make your<br /> > sites as dynamic as your art process.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree, and this was one of our main<br />[concerns/objectives] when criticalartware began to design liken, our<br />current connexionEngine and discoursePlatform. Using liken, these<br />discussions automagically [intertwine/crossbreed] based on group<br />navigational patterns. Soon, with the addition of personalized RSS<br />feeds, users will be able to customize their subscriptions & level of<br />involvement so that they can stay engaged with any<br />[topics/words/"authors"] they're interested in. Thus, the ability for<br />multiple communities to exist inside the multiverse of liken is also a<br />design objective, although in liken it's hard not to get drawn to every<br />corner of the universe by following incidental [linkages/pathways]. And<br />in liken, every time you click a link, you are changing the<br />relationships between the nodes around you, and building new pathways.<br /><br />In this way, liken can serve simultaneously as a communicative outlet<br />(ie [messageBoard/wiki (ours are likis)]), research tool and source of<br />inspiration. By acting in a similar way to a humanBrain (making<br />sumTimes outlandish connexions based on simple similarities), and<br />because it will automatically link any text you put into it, liken<br />serves as rich soil for creative life.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Liza,<br /><br />I'm part of a group [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.themap.org">http://www.themap.org</a> ] here in Asheville, NC, trying<br />to promote "media arts awareness," whatever that is. So far our main<br />vehicle of promotion has been monthly screenings of experimental short<br />films. So to broaden the spectrum, I recently gave this presentation on<br />generative art [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lab404.com/ghost">http://www.lab404.com/ghost</a> ]. It was initially set to<br />happen at the Fine Arts Theater downtown where they have been showing the<br />short films, but the owner of the theatre refused to host it because, in his<br />own words, "there's no money in interactivity." Which is hilarious now that<br />the gaming industry makes 3 times more money than Hollywood, but anyway. So<br />it finally wound up happening at the Black Mountain College Museum and Arts<br />Center, which was a good fit.<br /><br />It was a Bring Your Own Laptop event, so that people could experience the<br />haptic reactivity of the pieces themselves. (We had to "borrow" the<br />wireless network of the neighboring retail shop, but that's another story.)<br />For those who didn't bring their laptops, I explained to them that what they<br />were seeing projected on the wall was NOT the art. They were seeing a<br />once-removed mediated version of the art. They were watching me interact<br />with the art (in the case of the reactive pieces). Or they were watching me<br />manually refresh the generative pieces. There is a world of difference<br />between "jamming on" the "instruments" at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pianographique.com">http://www.pianographique.com</a> ,<br />and watching the projected output of someone else jamming on those<br />instruments.<br /><br />In any presentation like this, the "eureka" moments of audience revelation<br />come not with the first run of the generative work, but with the second run.<br />For instance, I showed the postmodernism generator [<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern">http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern</a> ] and began to explain about the<br />dada software engine on which it was based and the database of discrete<br />textual elements from which it drew, but when I hit refresh and the second<br />iteration of text appeared on the wall, that's when they experientially "got<br />it." Until some experience reveals the difference between a generative<br />piece and a linear animation piece, the difference is lost. The best way to<br />help users/patrons/co-participants/etc. experience these differences is not<br />always apparent. It won't always happen in an hour-long talk. Which is why<br />I linked the works, passed out the URL, and encouraged people to re-visit<br />the works and explore them after the talk. Sometimes it takes fifteen<br />minutes of personal interaction with one of these pieces, of "pushing at its<br />edges" to appreciate the limitlessness of the generative piece versus the<br />stasis of a mere linear animation. As the Strokes observe, "the end has no<br />end."<br /><br />Prior to giving my talk on generative art, I was interviewed about the talk<br />by the technology editor of the local paper. In the process, I showed him<br />one of lia's gorgeous reactive pieces and suggested he might get a better<br />sense of the work if he moved the mouse himself. He nodded, looked at me,<br />and then stared at the mouse as if it was a piece of unknown alien hardware.<br />He never did grab the mouse, but kept writing and asking questions. He had<br />intellectually understood the concept of what was happening, and assumed<br />that was good enough for his purposes. You might say he flipped through the<br />Fluxus Performance Workbook, but never showed up for the Happening.<br /><br />I'm critical of heavy reliance on artist statements because they often<br />provide an easy short-cut which excuses the artist from having to properly<br />"embody" her concept into her artwork. Curatorially, I think the best way<br />to get someone to appreciate the difference between generative artwork and<br />mere linear animation is not to explain that generative work is made<br />dynamically in real-time by algorithmic computation blah-blah-blah, but to<br />direct the user to interface with the generative/reactive piece in such a<br />way that she is led to "experience" the difference.<br /><br />This commission [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/">http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/</a><br />] is successful to me because it uses core code as a "control" to make<br />apparent the "variable" of code-influenced visual aesthetics. It doesn't<br />just explain how different programmer/artists have different coding styles,<br />it "shows" a visceral example of those different styles. (In this respect,<br />it's more interesting to me than CODeDOC [<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/">http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/</a> ], which foregrounds the<br />nuances of coding as a problem-solving art in and of itself, and backgrounds<br />the aesthetic nuances of the code-generated work. But then I never thought<br />programming in and of itself was all that sexy.)<br /><br />The job of new media apologetics falls to curators like Christiane Paul, but<br />also to artist/educators like Casey Reas, whose processing project with Ben<br />Fry [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://processing.org">http://processing.org</a> ] is a big step in the right direction. Some<br />high-minded artists and critics may be above such entry-level<br />"popularization," but unless somebody is willing to take the time to preach<br />to someone other than the choir, we are left with academic research and a<br />micro-scene mutual admiration society. (Our micro-scene is paradoxically<br />"world wide," but it's no less micro- for all that. Visitor logs don't<br />lie.)<br /><br />If generative art is difficult to understand as a medium, add network or<br />installation aspects into the mix, and it gets even more challenging to<br />teach, let alone sell. (My students and I visited <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bitforms.com">http://www.bitforms.com</a><br />in class yesterday, and they immediately noticed that Mark's first three<br />pieces [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bitforms.com/artist_napier.html">http://www.bitforms.com/artist_napier.html</a> ] didn't have a<br />"purchase" button.)<br /><br />Is transparent/opensource artist blogging the answer? It depends on how<br />well one writes and thinks (and on how many people read your blog). Josh<br />Davis used to give away his .fla files at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://praystation.com">http://praystation.com</a> (and won<br />the prix ars award for giving them away more than for the actual files<br />themselves). Jared Tarbell continues the "opensource" .fla tradition at<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.levitated.net/daily/">http://www.levitated.net/daily/</a> Heck, just viewsource at any dhtml-based<br />net.art site, and there you are.<br /><br />To play devil's advocate, do we need to solve the problem of "net.art<br />ghettoization?" What if net art is inherently ephemeral and outside of the<br />white box and takes a fair amount of one-on-one 'puter time commitment to<br />appreciate and will only be a footnote in the art history books? net.art<br />started in a spirit of anarchic, outsider fun. Might we best be proceeding<br />in a spirit of anarchic, outsider fun? I merely pose the question.<br /><br />peace,<br />curt<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 5, 2004, at 2:06 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > To play devil's advocate, do we need to solve the problem of<br /> > "net.art ghettoization?"<br /><br />This was the question Lev Manovich raised two years ago in "New Media<br />from Borges to HTML" (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nothing.org/netart_101/readings/manovich.htm">http://www.nothing.org/netart_101/readings/manovich.htm</a> ) when he said<br />"new media field is facing a danger of becoming a ghetto whose<br />participants would be united by their fetishism of latest computer<br />technology, rather than by any deeper conceptual, ideological or<br />aesthetic issues… I personally do think that the existence of a<br />separate new media field now and in the future makes very good sense,<br />but it does require a justification."<br /><br />(As a side note, this comment became the inspiration for the creation<br />of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.newmediaghetto.org">http://www.newmediaghetto.org</a> )<br /><br />Personally, I find the danger palpable. Looking through the ArtBase,<br />you can see the unbounded techNewPositivism – implicit and overt –<br />expressed in much of the work. I call it FlashFormalism, although it's<br />not limited to a particular authoring package; it's an attitude present<br />in any work which is more concerned with "interactivity" (I prefer the<br />term "cybernetics"), meaningless data wrangling, or pure formalism than<br />contributing to the larger discussion. Sometimes these works take<br />information as input to generate essentially abstract visual or<br />auditory patterns, pretending that using a news headline feed instead<br />of a random number generator makes the work more interesting. In fact,<br />one such work is displayed like a badge on the lapel of Rhizome.org –<br />the spiky logo which allegedly changes based on some hidden (and<br />probably more meaningful) data. The fact is that the logo is purely<br />formal, and the underlying data is totally irrelevant to the real goal<br />of the piece: pretty changing colors.<br /><br />The term "generative art" has gained currency lately as a way of<br />legitimizing these activities, but the output created by so much of<br />this "generative art" is inscrutably abstract. Unfortunately,<br />abstraction no longer has the powerful political and conceptual weight<br />it had at the end of the 19th century, so we are left with pretty<br />sounds and pictures that are entirely impotent. In today's political<br />climate, I find that particularly unforgivable.<br /><br />If the newmedia community as a whole doesn't move faster towards<br />criticality, discourse and evolution, it risks the same fate<br />psychedelia suffered by standing still and going from a powerful<br />political medium in the 60s to an exhausted juvenile cliche in the 70s.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben,<br /><br />I think we're talking about several different things.<br /><br />A. Giving up on trying to fit net art into high gallery art strictures does<br />not inherently imply:<br />1. techno fetishization<br />2. a-politicalization<br />3. abandonment to pure abstraction<br /><br />B. Abstract art does not inherently imply:<br />1. Psychedelia<br />2. Impotence<br /><br />For example, Paul Klee's work is neither psychedelic nor impotent and,<br />although no longer contemporary or en vogue, was and is potent and relevant.<br />I'd include Stan Brakhage in that category as well.<br /><br />C. Overtly political art does not inherently imply:<br />1. potency<br />2. maturity<br />3. proper moral use of art<br /><br />D. Generative techiniques in artwork do not inherently imply:<br />1. visual abstraction<br />2. a-conceptualization<br /><br />I guess when I say "ghetoization," I'm not attaching the<br />"techno-masturbatory/self-reflexive" implications that Manovich does in his<br />chapter. I hope to avoid those extremes as well. Ironically, by trying to<br />"make a place" for net.art in the contemporary art world canon, critics and<br />theorists are forced place inordinate emphasis on what net.art "uniquely is<br />and is not" in relation to old media. Consequently, gallery showings of<br />net.art can tend to over-emphasize technological/formal distinctions of the<br />work while under-emphasizing its aesthetic or conceptual merits. "Classic,<br />clear-cut examples" of net-specific art may make for dramatic object<br />lessons, but they don't always make for interesting art.<br /><br />I mean "ghetoization" to imply, "net art outside the gallery structure, not<br />making a whole lot of cash, not too concernet with making a place for<br />itself, having fun." Outsider net.art may still be as political or<br />conceptual as you like. It may even be highly popular. It's just more in<br />dialogue with the audience of the network itself and less overtly in<br />dialogue with the audience of the gallery. It's not trying to solve the<br />curatorial challenges of its own historical dissemenation.<br /><br />peace,<br />curt<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /> On Oct 5, 2004, at 4:48 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > A. Giving up on trying to fit net art into high gallery art<br /> > strictures does not inherently imply:<br /> > 1. techno fetishization<br /> > 2. a-politicalization<br /> > 3. abandonment to pure abstraction<br /><br />No, of course not. However, the "high art" complex has a heavily<br />conceptual foundation, which is a useful context for moving actual<br />discussion forward. Also, we must be extremely careful not to reject<br />the hystorical conversations and work from which our current work<br />emerges. The gallery is irrelevant, but the art world is not.<br /><br /> > B. Abstract art does not inherently imply:<br /> > 1. Psychedelia<br /> > 2. Impotence<br /><br />I wasn't making the case that abstract art == psychedelia, but I will<br />make the case that abstract art is impotent in today's art context. If<br />anyone disagrees, then enlighten me: what does pure abstraction have to<br />say? Is it a comment on our fragmented, post-modern times? If so, it's<br />a half-century-old sentiment. Great art makes the people of its time<br />uncomfortable – I don't think abstraction has made anyone<br />uncomfortable for decades. I'd go further and say that formalism hasn't<br />made anyone uncomfortable in quite some either; representational or<br />abstract, if all you have going for you is aesthetics, you're not<br />really saying anything.<br /><br /> > For example, Paul Klee's work is neither psychedelic nor impotent<br />> and, although no longer contemporary or en vogue, was and is<br /> > potent and relevant. I'd include Stan Brakhage in that category ><br />as well.<br /><br />And yet Klee's work was extremely challenging when it was being<br />produced; at various times "primitivist," child-like, surrealist,<br />cubist and transcendentalist, there was a heady conceptual backing to<br />everything Klee did. All of these artistic movements that he was<br />influenced by (and exerted influence on) were socially radical, as was<br />his work (and even the very concept of abstraction, at that point).<br /><br />Similarly, Brakhage came out of the 1960s, and his desire to bring<br />pre-verbal consciousness-expanding sublimity to the viewer, through the<br />manipulation of light and the rejection of narrative and traditional<br />film production techniques, was extremely provocative and radical.<br /><br />However, it's no longer 1917 or 1968. Abstraction/formalism is no<br />longer [surprising/upsetting/challenging], even when it's on the<br />computerBox. What does formalism have to say today? Lets break it down.<br />Unlike Brakhage, these folks aren't breaking the means of production to<br />interesting ends, nor are they saying anything uncomfortable or<br />challenging. Apps like Flash and Photoshop were designed to make pretty<br />pictures – making swirling lines and random sounds in Flash is like<br />making a traditional film in 1968, or painting straight portraits in<br />1917. Subtle statements can be made, but you contribute nothing to the<br />global discussion we call "art."<br /><br />Creating your own tools is more interesting, but when the end result is<br />the changing Rhizome logo, your hard work is for naught. It's the<br />equivalent of the straight portrait painter grinding his own paints in<br />1917 – admirable work for the service of art which has nothing to say.<br /><br /> > C. Overtly political art does not inherently imply:<br /> > 1. potency<br /> > 2. maturity<br /> > 3. proper moral use of art<br /><br />I never said it did, and anyone who does has an extremely Marxist view<br />of artmaking. However, I don't understand why someone would make art<br />which says nothing when there is so much to say.<br /><br /> > D. Generative techiniques in artwork do not inherently imply:<br /> > 1. visual abstraction<br /> > 2. a-conceptualization<br /><br />I love these rule systems you built! :) But really, I never implied<br />anything about all "generative art." What I did was to suggest that the<br />preponderance of "generative art" is [abstract/formal]. In this way,<br />it's mostly about itself, and how cool it is that it's generating<br />material, sometimes interactively, sometimes using clever data as<br />input. In short, most "generative art" doesn't have much impact after<br />the initial coolness, like browsing Wallpaper* magazine.<br /><br />> "Classic, clear-cut examples" of net-specific art may make for<br />> dramatic object lessons, but they don't always make for interesting<br />> art.<br /><br />Most certainly. Like the early video moment, sometimes the important<br />discussion takes place outside the [gallery/museum] system, and the<br />intersections with galleries are awkward and in many ways unsuccessful.<br />The point is that it's important not to articulate newmedia as divorced<br />from the hystorical threads that wove it.<br /><br />- ben<br />+ + +<br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben,<br /><br />It seems we fundamentally disagree on the importance of art being in<br />dialogue with the contemporary art world. I don't think Klee or Brakhage's<br />work is important or interesting primarily because it was radical or heady<br />or novel in its time. Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in<br />the 60s, and the work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything<br />he's ever done.<br /><br />Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through the<br />sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have great<br />value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious social change).<br />This is the interesting thing about outsider art and one of the things I<br />think the net is good for (if we'll let it be). Human culture has changed a<br />great deal, but individual humans have been wired pretty much the same for a<br />good while.<br /><br />If it's alway primarily about "forwarding the canonical dialogue," artmaking<br />can quickly devolve into a chasing after newness, a sort of conceptual<br />fashion show. Collectors as venture capitalists and artists as aspiring<br />CEOs hoping to go public with their newest art venture. Where's the passion<br />in that? What? You say passion's been out of date since Romanticism?<br />Dang.<br /><br />This quote (which I've posted here before) seems pertinent:<br /><br />"An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and<br />such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some<br />dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible<br />in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be<br />believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well<br />say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not<br />suitable to half-past four. What a man can believe depends upon his<br />philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. If a man believes in<br />unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age. If a<br />man believes in a will behind law, he can believe in any miracle in any<br />age… It is simply a matter of a man's theory of things. Therefore in<br />dealing with any historical answer, the point is not whether it was given in<br />our time, but whether it was given in answer to our question."<br />- g.k. chesterton, 1908<br /><br />I would remix it this way, "What art a man can [enjoy/receive from/be moved<br />by] depends upon his propensity, not upon the clock or the century."<br /><br />(But as t. whild has pointed out previously, the quote is almost 100 years<br />out of date, so there you are.)<br /><br />peace,<br />curt<br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br />curt, at the risk of delivering a pt-by-pt response rather than an<br />elegant and coherent essay, I'd like to address a few pts individually<br />in-line. I apologize in advance for the length, but I promise there'll<br />be some juicy nuggets sprinkled along the way!<br /><br /> On Oct 5, 2004, at 11:02 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > It seems we fundamentally disagree on the importance of art being<br />> in dialogue with the contemporary art world.<br /><br />Our dialogues are already being assimilated into the broader art<br />context; this discussion we're having is art in dialogue with the<br />contemporary art world. The dialogue that Beryl Korot, Phyllis<br />Gershuny, and Ira Schneider fostered in Radical Software (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.radicalsoftware.org">http://www.radicalsoftware.org</a> ) was not really considered to be part<br />of the general contemporary art narrative of the time (early 70s), but<br />the art world has a way of swallowing engaging discussions, even if it<br />takes a while.<br /><br />The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of<br />becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be received<br />with excitement and a deafening silence of critical discussion,<br />newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever reaches critical<br />mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need to inject the<br />criticality that's missing by not having a wider recognition &&<br />discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In fact, who better to<br />critique this work than us, the combination [audience/creators]? I just<br />don't see that critical discourse happening. I see a lot of wrangling<br />over the terminology and technology, but not much attention paid to the<br />ideas.<br /><br /> > I don't think Klee or Brakhage's work is important or interesting<br /> > primarily because it was radical or heady or novel in its time.<br /><br />Then that truly is a fundamental disagreement, because both of those<br />artists (and every other major artist in history, almost without<br />exception) are remembered precisely because they challenged<br />assumptions, made people uncomfortable, and posed controversial (if<br />sometimes implicit) questions. I definitely want to avoid personal<br />statements, but anyone who thinks these or any artists are<br />[important/interesting] because their work is aesthetically pleasing<br />has an [incomplete/impoverished] understanding of the hyperthreaded<br />hystorical context in which the work was produced. All "important" work<br />is about ideas; even the works of abstractExpressionists and 1970s<br />minimalists made their own provocative arguments.<br /><br /> > Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in the 60s, and ><br />the work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything<br /> > he's ever done.<br /><br />However, how can you not see Brakhage as emerging from the hyperthreads<br />running through the 1950s and 1960? Even his last works were products<br />of a career forged in that climate, although by the 90s, also<br />interwoven with all the threads in-between… It's not about waves,<br />it's about the dialogue we as artists participate in by creating work.<br />If what you do isn't challenging, you're not contributing to that<br />dialogue.<br /><br /> > Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through<br />> the sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still ><br />have great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde<br /> > precious social change).<br /><br />Clearly, and no one disputes this. In fact, perhaps the most potent<br />works exist on the fringe of that system. However, as the "contemporary<br />art world" wrestles with how best to absorb us into their discussion,<br />the problem they're encountering is not how best to fit us into a<br />gallery, but rather how to [talk/write] about work that doesn't seem to<br />have anything interesting to say. BUSTED.<br /><br /> > This is the interesting thing about outsider art and one of the<br /> > things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be).<br /><br />Let's not get started on "outsider" art, and the offensively<br />condescending colonial-era mindset that celebrates "virgin" work<br />unscathed by the evil corrupting influence of the art world dialogue. I<br />thought we finally vanquished this pathologically naive Modernist<br />impulse in the 80s. The reality is that, whether we know it or not, we<br />are all drawing from similar hystorical hyperthreads. Art, advertising<br />and popular culture are so [inbred/intertwined] that the difference<br />between the art school graduate and the mythical kid from the projects<br />is that the art school graduate can *sometimes* put a name to a handful<br />of the people and movements they draw artistic inspiration from. To<br />think the net somehow creates the opportunity for more "outside" voices<br />is to get it exactly wrong. Instead, the net's interconwebness<br />crossbreeds everything in it (including the artWorld and everything<br />else) even faster, and even more than in any other media. "Outsider"<br />art will emerge from this network of insiders known as the "interweb"<br />about as often as wild feral adults will emerge from Manhattan.<br /><br /> > If it's alway primarily about "forwarding the canonical<br /> > dialogue," artmaking can quickly devolve into a chasing after<br /> > newness, a sort of conceptual fashion show.<br /><br />WOAH D00D. It's not about the canon, or the cult of the new; it's about<br />your work contributing to an ongoing and meaningful discussion. To call<br />the distributed cognitive processing of the art community a "conceptual<br />fashion show" is to declare war against intellectual pursuit! If we're<br />going to go that route, how about you take all of the<br />diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant "outsiders" you can "discover," and<br />I'll take all of the intellectually curious people who have anything to<br />say. ;)<br /><br /> > Collectors as venture capitalists and artists as aspiring CEOs<br /> > hoping to go public with their newest art venture. Where's the<br /> > passion in that? What? You say passion's been out of date since<br /> > Romanticism? Dang.<br /><br />Passion's always in, baby. To understand the art world, you need to<br />understand the roles of (in alphaOrder) artists, critics, collectors,<br />curators and [gallery owners/dealers]. They all have their own<br />[economic/career] motives, and it's crucial to always remember this, no<br />matter what they say about it all being about the art. Artists who get<br />caught up in the economics and career strategies of the art world do so<br />at the risk of confusing others' motives with their own, and diverting<br />attention from their own work. See Exhibit A, Jeff Koons, who carefully<br />engineered his own career, indeed making his celebrity a [focus/aspect]<br />of his work – however, it backfired when his popularity inevitably<br />waned (as is the case with any celebrity who doesn't actively reinvent<br />[him/her]self).<br /><br />What does that have to do with newmedia? Beats me – the most<br />interesting newmedia isn't happening on the front page of ArtForum,<br />it's happening on and off lists like these. Unfortunately, we're just<br />not engaging in enough critical discussion about that work.<br /><br /> > "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying<br /> > that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be<br /> > held in another." - g.k. chesterton, 1908<br /><br />As charming as Chesterton's plea for the wisdom of the good ole days<br />is, his comment fails to recognize the evolutionary nature of human<br />discussion && activity. Today we understand Newtonian physics as the<br />hystorical context from which Einstein's theory of General Relativity<br />emerged. Newton's ideas were revolutionary, and extremely insightful,<br />but on a solar or galactic scale, we now see they don't work as well,<br />so Einstein proposed General Relativity to explain the discrepancies.<br />Then scientists discovered that General Relativity doesn't work so well<br />on the [atomic/subatomic] scale, so Quantum Mechanics was developed as<br />a parallel model. This isn't to say that we look back at Newton or<br />Einstein with scorn for being out of date – quite the opposite; each<br />is crucial for understanding the context and creation of the next.<br />However, you never see scientists complaining that Quantum Mechanics<br />and Superstring Theory are too fashionable, and that Newtonian physics<br />worked fine for Newton so they should work fine for us today.<br /><br />Granted, the art world doesn't have as linear a narrative, but to rip<br />artistic [theories/practices] out of their threads of hystorical<br />context and drop them into the present is to pretend that the<br />intervening years of discussion and debate never happened. It's willful<br />intellectual amnesia. We are, after all, talking about Chesterton, so<br />let's not forget-to-remember that he was a curmudgeonly sometimes<br />anti-Semite, full time anti-Feminist and an art-school-educated<br />anti-Artist: "the artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts<br />amateurs." We could [explain/understand] his now-controversial<br />positions by examining his hystorical context, but by his own<br />direction, maybe he would rather we ignore his context and take his<br />creeds of that era at face value.<br /><br />All of this is the long way of saying that newmedia disregards the<br />threads which weave it at its own peril. So rather than watch this<br />FlashFormalism float by and let myself become complicit in my silence,<br />I solemnly vow to do my part to be a curmudgeon in my own way by<br />contributing criticism and artwork to the discussion.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 08:37AM, bensyverson<br /> <rhizome@bensyverson.com> wrote:<br /><br /> >The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of<br /> >becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be<br />>received with excitement and a deafening silence of critical<br /> >discussion, newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever<br /> >reaches critical mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need<br />>to inject the criticality that's missing by not having a wider<br /> >recognition && discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In<br /> >fact, who better to critique this work than us, the combination<br /> >[audience/creators]? I just don't see that critical discourse<br /> >happening. I see a lot of wrangling over the terminology and<br /> >technology, but not much attention paid to the ideas.<br /><br />Illustrating fashionable art discourse *will* lead to footnotes. net.art's<br />would-be-social-engagement was trivial, getting some critical *distance* and<br />autonomy is a good next step. R&D rather than R&R.<br /><br /> >All of this is the long way of saying that newmedia disregards the<br /> >threads which weave it at its own peril.<br /><br />It becomes just the gilt on them at its own peril as well.<br /><br /> >So rather than watch this FlashFormalism float by and let myself<br />>become complicit in my silence, I solemnly vow to do my part to be >a<br />curmudgeon in my own way by contributing criticism and artwork >to the<br />discussion.<br /><br />Yes. But regarding the art, silence can be a statement, fantasy can be<br />realistic and formalism can have social content and meaning.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br /> > WOAH D00D. It's not about the canon, or the cult of the new; it's<br /> > about your work contributing to an ongoing and meaningful<br /> > discussion. To call the distributed cognitive processing of the<br /> > art community a "conceptual fashion show" is to declare war<br /> > against intellectual pursuit! If we're going to go that route,<br /> > how about you take all of the diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant<br /> > "outsiders" you can "discover," and I'll take all of the<br /> >intellectually curious people who have anything to say. ;)<br /><br />i'll add my own "woah dood" here. confusing sanctioned art world<br />discussions with intellectual pursuit is a bit of a dishonest trick.<br />Have you READ any of the well funded art pubs? how much "intellectual<br />pursuit" did you find there? the art world is not about transparency.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 3:35 AM, ryan griffis wrote:<br /><br /> > i'll add my own "woah dood" here. confusing sanctioned art world<br /> > discussions with intellectual pursuit is a bit of a dishonest ><br />trick. Have you READ any of the well funded art pubs? how much<br /> > "intellectual pursuit" did you find there? the art world is not<br /> > about transparency.<br /><br />Who says that's the artistic discussion that matters? Like I mentioned,<br />the relevant artistic discourses are usually absorbed by the art world<br />as an economicMachine from the outside. However, this fact does not<br />render the art world irrelevant to newmedia; it's important to<br />recognize that among the superstrings that resonate to form "newMedia,"<br />the artWorld is an important harmonic in that formative vibration,<br />along with the parallel histories that accompany that<br />[world/narrative]. You have to be clear about acknowledging that the<br />economic aspects of the artWorld work in concert, but not always<br />harmony, with the intellectual threads being spun. ArtForum is a trade<br />magazine for [collectors/curators/gallery owners] about the art market<br />– to take it and it similar mags as representative of the whole of<br />"ContemporaryArt" leaves out the world that critics and artists live<br />in. In other words, it ignores the intellectual heart of the artWorld,<br />which is lists like these, conferences like ReadMe, artSchools all<br />over, and everywhere else discussion is taking place. What I'm saying<br />is: wake up and realize that this is the "sanctioned art world," so<br />lets have some real critical Discourse.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 02:08AM, bensyverson<br /> <rhizome@bensyverson.com> wrote:<br /> <br /> >I wasn't making the case that abstract art == psychedelia, but I<br />>will make the case that abstract art is impotent in today's art<br />>context. If anyone disagrees, then enlighten me: what does pure<br />>abstraction have to say? Is it a comment on our fragmented, post-<br />>modern times? If so, it's a half-century-old sentiment. Great art<br />>makes the people of its time uncomfortable – I don't think<br />>abstraction has made anyone uncomfortable for decades. I'd go<br />>further and say that formalism hasn't made anyone uncomfortable in<br />>quite some either; representational or abstract, if all you have >going<br />for you is aesthetics, you're not really saying anything.<br /><br />Pure abstraction is resistant to the dominant mode of criticism (the dreary<br />romanticism of the expanded text), and a semiotised (grammatical,<br />algorithmic, kitsch) culture. It certainly seems to make some people<br />uncomfortable, and not just the plebs who still don't grok it.<br /><br />In a society where aesthetics has long since triumphed over ethics,<br />aesthetic engagement is social engagement with or without Adorno. Pure<br />aesthetics may find a new space, or at least a new point or angle. The<br />contempt that mediatised govenrments express for Media Studies is telling,<br />it is mirrored in the contempt aestheticised critical regimes hold for<br />aesthetics.<br /><br />One of the damn things is indeed enough. Break-out is needed to get back in.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> added:<br /><br />If the things you're saying about the stagnation of new media art and<br />lack of critical discourse are true, then I would have to assume that<br />this is a US problem because those statements just sound absurd here in<br />Europe. With all the conferences, workshops and exhibits going on all<br />over Europe, public interest in new media is at an all time high. New<br />books are being published, universities are constantly creating new<br />programs to deal with the various facets of new media and well known<br />museums are exhibiting more and more new media work. But you can always<br />find a number of North American participants at the conferences and<br />workshops here, which makes your statements even less convincing. From<br />where I'm standing, it looks like there's *a lot* going on both in the<br />fields of practice and theory.<br /><br />As far as your statements regarding the abstract go…<br /><br />When work is based on data that is converted to an abstract<br />representation, that *is* quite a radical commentary on the state of our<br />world right now. Today, everything around us is data that makes sense to<br />some system it was created for. I was at the store yesterday and the<br />price tag was missing on an item I purchased. I was able to tell the<br />worker the price, but that had no meaning to her *system*. She couldn't<br />just say, "OK, add an item to this list at the price of $22.43." She had<br />to leave the register to go on a hunting expedition to find the barcode.<br />That little thing that means absolutely nothing to us but everything to<br />a stores cataloging and register system. So much so that the system<br />can't do anything without it. So the practice of taking this data, that<br />has the power to control our lives, and turn it into an abstract<br />representation that is all about aesthetics and has nothing to do with<br />the datas intended meaning, becomes very powerfull indeed. It's akin to<br />the famous photo of a hippy putting a flower into the barrel of a<br />soldiers rifle, converting the ominous killing machine into an<br />ornamental vase.<br /><br />Pall<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:<br /><br /> > From where I'm standing, it looks like there's *a lot* going on ><br />both in the fields of practice and theory.<br /><br />I agree, and certainly more is happening in Europe, but I still see a<br />gap in criticality. Works which leverage the latest technology receive<br />the most discussion, and ideas often take a back seat to the<br />enthusiastic rush to be the first to make the widget do X.<br /><br /> > When work is based on data that is converted to an abstract<br /> > representation, that *is* quite a radical commentary on the state<br />> of our world right now…. It's akin to the famous photo of a > hippy<br />putting a flower into the barrel of a soldiers rifle, > converting<br />the ominous killing machine into an ornamental vase.<br /><br />Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain<br />unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but<br />often a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random<br />numbers, whereas "hippies" putting flowers in random locations would<br />have a very different effect; those flowers were guided missiles. The<br />question becomes, why bother feeding it real data if you need to be<br />told what the work is [assimilating/reprocessing]? Just use random<br />numbers! The conceptual statement about data overload remains the same.<br />In fact, everything remains the same except the stale non-novelty that<br />the work is drawing from live data. Just something to think about.<br /><br />Further, who is actually interested in the amount of data flowing<br />around us constantly? I mean really interested. Is "too much<br />information!" a viable platform for artistic activity, or is it a<br />stalling tactic while one thinks of something more substantive to say?<br />At a certain point, to comment on the sea of data is like commenting on<br />the weather. Backbone traffic is high today, with a 30% chance of rain.<br />Personally, I would hope we could leave this topic to the first-year<br />New Media undergraduates and move on to something – anything – more<br />intriguing.<br /><br />with optimism,<br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben (and all),<br /><br />I'll respond point by point to various posts:<br />ben:<br />The problem I see is that the newmedia discussion is at risk of<br /> becoming less-than-engaging. If FlashFormalism continues to be received<br /> with excitement and a deafening silence of critical discussion,<br /> newmedia will be stillborn; irrelevant before it ever reaches critical<br /> mass. To avoid becoming such a footnote, we need to inject the<br /> criticality that's missing by not having a wider recognition &&<br /> discussion in the hyper-critical art world. In fact, who better to<br /> critique this work than us, the combination [audience/creators]? I just<br /> don't see that critical discourse happening. I see a lot of wrangling<br /> over the terminology and technology, but not much attention paid to the<br /> ideas. <br /> <br />curt:<br />I agree with Rob and Pall here. There is a way to critically discuss<br />abstraction that may involve engaging in formalistic/graphic design<br />aesthetics that seem outmoded to you. So we can't discuss them because such<br />critical discourse is not currently en vogue? But aren't we the ones<br />(critics, artists, curators) who shape where the critical dialogue is going?<br />If things on the net are becoming more hodge-podged and interbred with pop<br />culture, what's to keep art critics from approaching such pieces as rock<br />music critics or graphic design aesthetes? Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol<br />LeWitt and taking his instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously<br />abstract level. MTAA are reinterpreting early conceptual works and<br />recontextualizing them in a hyper-mediated environment. None of this seems<br />intellectually bereft to me, nor does it seem out of bounds or culturally<br />irrelevant. If one current artistic mode is the remix, then we can expect<br />to see earlier aspects of the "art tapestry" show up in the mix as well<br />(whether consciously or unconsciously).<br />curt:<br />> I don't think Klee or Brakhage's work is important or interesting<br />> primarily because it was radical or heady or novel in its time.<br /><br />ben:<br />Then that truly is a fundamental disagreement, because both of those<br /> artists (and every other major artist in history, almost without<br /> exception) are remembered precisely because they challenged<br /> assumptions, made people uncomfortable, and posed controversial (if<br /> sometimes implicit) questions.<br /> <br />curt:<br />But is the sum of the worth of their art the fact that they were remembered<br />for it? Had they not been remembered, would their art still have value as<br />art? Can it still be appreciated out of the context of its production?<br />There are plenty of artists who have gained notoriety for their craft and<br />invention, working within a pre-defined tradition they didn't pioneer.<br />Pre-impressionist artists, craftspeople in local artisan subcultures.<br />ben:<br /> I definitely want to avoid personal<br /> statements, but anyone who thinks these or any artists are<br /> [important/interesting] because their work is aesthetically pleasing<br /> has an [incomplete/impoverished] understanding of the hyperthreaded<br /> hystorical context in which the work was produced. All "important" work<br /> is about ideas; even the works of abstractExpressionists and 1970s<br /> minimalists made their own provocative arguments.<br /> <br />curt:<br />So you assert. Here are some contrary voices:<br /><br />"Knowledge and intelligence are puny flippers alongside clairvoyance. Ideas<br />are a dull gas, a rarefied gas. Only when clairvoyance is extinguished do<br />ideas and the blind fish of their waters – the intellectuals – appear. The<br />reason art exists is because its mode of operation does not take the mode of<br />ideas."<br />- jean dubuffet<br /><br />"Art is not there to provide knowledge in direct ways. It produces deepened<br />perceptions of experience. More must happen than simply logically<br />understandable things. Art is not there to be simply understood, or we would<br />have no need of art. It could then just be logical sentences in a form of a<br />text for instance. Where objects are concerned it's more the sense of an<br />indication or suggestion."<br />- joseph beuys<br /><br />"People who look for symbolic meanings fail to grasp the inherent poetry and<br />mystery of the image. By asking, "what does this mean?" they express a wish<br />that everything be understandable. But if one does not reject the mystery,<br />one has quite a different response. One asks other things."<br />- rene magritte<br /> <br />Are they to be understood as Newton to your Einstein? That seems a<br />convenient dismissal without having to actually counter the forcefullness of<br />their positions. I'm hesitant to subscribe to the paradigm of paradigmatic<br />revolutions in art and art criticism. As you concede, art ain't science.<br />curt: <br />> Brakhage wasn't really making any sizeable waves in the 60s, and the<br /> > work he made a few years ago is as intriguing as anything he's ever<br /> > done. <br /><br />ben:<br />It's not about waves,<br /> it's about the dialogue we as artists participate in by creating work.<br /> If what you do isn't challenging, you're not contributing to that<br /> dialogue. <br /><br />curt:<br />Challenging by whose criteria? As Pall points out, abstraction of data<br />flows can be particularly challenging from several angles beyond just pure<br />abstraction. Here are a few pieces to consider:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://textarc.org">http://textarc.org</a> (from a lit crit angle)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html">http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html</a> (from a synesthetic angle)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/rsg">http://rhizome.org/rsg</a> (from a play angle)<br />ben:<br />As the "contemporary<br /> art world" wrestles with how best to absorb us into their discussion,<br /> the problem they're encountering is not how best to fit us into a<br /> gallery, but rather how to [talk/write] about work that doesn't seem to<br /> have anything interesting to say. BUSTED.<br /> <br />curt:<br />I'm not sure which critics you're talking about and which artists your<br />talking about here. Anyway, is it the artist's role to give critics<br />"interesting" fodder? What if the artist is diametrically opposed to the<br />contemporary paradigms of materialistic critical discourse? cf:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/essays/curt.html">http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/essays/curt.html</a><br />ben:<br />"Outsider" <br /> art will emerge from this network of insiders known as the "interweb"<br /> about as often as wild feral adults will emerge from Manhattan.<br /><br />curt:<br />Sweet prose. Well played.<br />ben:<br />To call <br /> the distributed cognitive processing of the art community a "conceptual<br /> fashion show" is to declare war against intellectual pursuit! If we're<br /> going to go that route, how about you take all of the<br /> diamond-in-the-rough idiotSavant "outsiders" you can "discover," and<br /> I'll take all of the intellectually curious people who have anything to<br /> say. ;)<br /> <br />curt:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/</a><br />ben:<br />the most <br /> interesting newmedia isn't happening on the front page of ArtForum,<br /> it's happening on and off lists like these. Unfortunately, we're just<br /> not engaging in enough critical discussion about that work.<br /><br />curt:<br />I totally agree. But then some work doesn't lend itself well to<br />contemporary critical dicussion. Is the problem with the work, or with<br />contemporary modes of critical discussion? If all you can say of work like<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net">http://www.complexification.net</a> is that it's FlashFormalism [insert<br />silence], then I don't know where we go from there.<br />ben:<br />It's willful <br /> intellectual amnesia.<br /> <br />curt:<br />another juicy nugget. excellent.<br />ben:<br />We are, after all, talking about Chesterton, so<br /> let's not forget-to-remember that he was a curmudgeonly sometimes<br /> anti-Semite, full time anti-Feminist and an art-school-educated<br /> anti-Artist: "the artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts<br /> amateurs." <br /> <br />curt:<br />And Picasso was a womanizer. And Pollock an alcoholic. And Wagner!<br /><br />ben:<br /> We could [explain/understand] his now-controversial<br /> positions by examining his hystorical context, but by his own<br /> direction, maybe he would rather we ignore his context and take his<br /> creeds of that era at face value.<br /><br />curt:<br />Indeed he would (he might even take issue with you tacking on "of that<br />era"). Either his argument fits into your box ["chesterton is outmoded"],<br />or your argument fits into his ["ben is using a contemporary rhetorical<br />gambit to avoid having to wrestling with the veracity of old ideas by<br />declaring them outmoded"].<br />rob:<br />Illustrating fashionable art discourse *will* lead to footnotes. net.art's<br />would-be-social-engagement was trivial, getting some critical *distance* and<br />autonomy is a good next step. R&D rather than R&R.<br /><br />neil young:<br />the lasers are in the lab<br />the old man is dressed in white clothes<br />everybody says he's mad<br />no one knows the things that he knows<br />rob:<br />Regarding the art, silence can be a statement, fantasy can be realistic and<br />formalism can have social content and meaning.<br /><br />curt:<br />Agreed (and so pithily expressed!) Indeed, art is the one realm of human<br />activity where abstraction and formalism can *speak* into the cultural<br />"dialogue." But now it's time to muzzle them and move toward a more<br />didactic coceptualism because… ?<br />rob:<br />Pure abstraction is resistant to the dominant mode of criticism (the dreary<br />romanticism of the expanded text), and a semiotised (grammatical,<br />algorithmic, kitsch) culture. It certainly seems to make some people<br />uncomfortable, and not just the plebs who still don't grok it.<br /><br /> In a society where aesthetics has long since triumphed over ethics,<br />aesthetic engagement is social engagement with or without Adorno. Pure<br />aesthetics may find a new space, or at least a new point or angle. The<br />contempt that mediatised govenrments express for Media Studies is telling,<br />it is mirrored in the contempt aestheticised critical regimes hold for<br />aesthetics.<br /><br /> One of the damn things is indeed enough. Break-out is needed to get back<br />in.<br /><br />curt:<br />agreed. plus it's so danged pretty! (does this mean I can keep my<br />subscription to wallpaper magazine?)<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org> added:<br /><br />Well if I survive my doctor's appointment, he says sounding<br />as ominous as possible, I will try to make up a set of explicated<br />links to various scientific visualization tools. It is interesting<br />because the same things are happening there. People oh and ah over<br />the "VISIT" technology which is great when one has a big group<br />right there to talk to, but doesn't work as well with real distance<br />learning. It is interesting that the old "Slides with a lot of<br />explanation" technique has its probelms. This improvement seems<br />to leave a little to be desired, its pretty obvious to me that<br />it was used in situations where topics like "cyclogensis" were<br />often discussed and knowing all the steps were second nature.<br />It doesn't do as well with "distance learning" where people perhaps<br />haven't thought about the details of the process until knowing it<br />is second nature. So lots of animations and some overlayed maps<br />don't help as much unless you have an instructor pointing out the<br />"easy to see" and "obvious" features.<br /><br />In the case of actually teaching something that people have to know<br />well I don't think one can be quite as dismissive as "let's leave that<br />to the undergrads and go onto something I think of as neat and<br />interesting" but I am indeed mixing at least Lemons and Oranges<br />and all their levels of meaning. I guess I should ask "praytell what<br />are these more interesting topics." Anyway let's see if I call rustle<br />up some links for people to look into, and then maybe those of mystical<br />bent will start about what they see in the clouds.;)<br /><br />The VISIT homepage:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/visithome.asp">http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/visithome.asp</a><br /><br />The Cyclogenisis Talk (requires a bit of memory;)<br />has nice "clouds in the coffee" water vapor imagery.<br />One of the "baroclinic leaves" on water vapor looks<br />like some little homonuceulus(spelling?) to me!;)<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/cyclo/title.asp">http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/cyclo/title.asp</a><br /><br />This page has various imaging related to current weather:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cira.colostate.edu/RAMM/Rmsdsol/main.html">http://www.cira.colostate.edu/RAMM/Rmsdsol/main.html</a><br /><br />NEXSAT Pretty Pictures (that alas are seldom current, you can<br />look at the map for Monterey and know why I am in a bad mood<br />as of late.;)<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/nexsat_pages/nexsat_home.html">http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/nexsat_pages/nexsat_home.html</a><br /><br />Note night mode is partucularly pretty and makes a good<br />desktop. The images/pictures here are apt to not be up<br />to date, so all the old imaging stuff is still useful.<br />Anyway…Have Fun,<br />Sends Steve<br />+ + +<br /><br />Jess Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com> added:<br /><br />apologies - house full of ill children and I'm trailing behind the thread…<br /><br /> > so, if you want to use flash, that's cool. but just do it having<br /> > decided to make your work for folks on IE/winXP and not the web in<br /> > general. in fact, i can't think of anything that works well locally<br /> > AND the web. even Java acts more differently on different platforms<br /> > than they admit. But we have always assumed, if we make it for the<br /> > web, it should work everywhere. very little actually does.<br /> <br />Is it true that *we* always have assumed that it will work everywhere?<br />Limitations set by <br />software, viewers hardware, connections speed, plug-ins have always had to<br />be a <br />consideration for artists no matter which platform they themselves favoured.<br />Have artists <br />really believed that a work was globally accessible simply because it was on<br />the net? <br /><br />When I first starting making work for the I used to get it in the neck for<br />'proofing' work <br />on lists to check what problems people had. The response form the *net.art<br />technical <br />department* was that I should now these things before I started if I was<br />doing things <br />'properly' (always seemed mildly patronizing). I do proof them myself now<br />on various <br />systems but I don't think I pick up as many issues as I did when I asked<br />others to look - I <br />simply can't know all the variables. My observation is that a majority of<br />artists seem <br />well aware of the viewing issue inherent on the web and respond in a number<br />of <br />different ways. Many appear to 'spread' their work amougst a variety of<br />formats that will <br />make a certain amount accessible to each group in the knowledge that very<br />little will be <br />accessible to all. It seems a bigger problem for artists who will only<br />produce work using <br />one particular technique, but what do you say to them - diversify?<br /><br />My feeling generally it that it still bandwidth (particularly outside the<br />US) that is the <br />primary mediator to what people can and cannot view rather than browser.<br />With the <br />extension onto PDA's etc this is even more of an issue. I know viewing work<br />on a pda for <br />the first time for me was a wake-up call - like jumping back 6 years where i<br />waited <br />patiently on the end of a dodgy dial-up to view works I was told were<br />'multi-platform'. <br /><br /> A best I would say that the all that is possible is to recommend a<br />particular browser or<br />connection speed but know that you may never be able to do enough to be<br />accessible <br />to all. The rise of adware and the necessity for anti-spam/pop-ups, raised<br />browser <br />security has restricted previously accessible work unless you are happy to<br />reconfigure <br />your browser in response to each site. As I said, I also use firefox and<br />safari on a mac <br />as well as IE on a pc and these issues seem affect all equally.<br /><br />I went to look at a friends stunning VRML datascapes the otherday, changed<br />browsers, <br />downloaded the software I needed, tweaked various settings and then my<br />processor <br />was too slow and it all fell over. Would you argue that he should he stop<br />making them?<br /><br />I'm interested in your thoughts in this, not trying to be pedantic:)<br /><br />jess.<br /> o<br />/^\ rssgallery.com<br /> ][<br />+ + +<br /><br />Steve Kudlak <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org> replied:<br />That's why I posted the weather links. They actually try to get<br />it all to work reasonably well in a variety of circumstances.<br />Note when I explain weather stuff to Junior High students I usually<br />have made a journey around the various public facilities to see<br />of things work in various places. I mean one has to consider that<br />not all folks in their early teens have a computer and can tweak<br />things as needed. I do note sometimes adults give up prematurely.<br />They throw up their hands very easily and just give up, when just<br />a few things would have got them what they wanted. Giggle, medical<br />people are the worst in this regard I have found so far. They are<br />also the worst at listening to the advice of others. But I do digress<br />and besides that could be just my experience.<br /><br />In general it is nice to have things work across platforms and across<br />browsers and hopefully if even moderately daunting tweaks are spelled<br />out and various factors are taken into consideration.<br /><br />It is understandable that things don't work on all things and<br />all cicumstances. But sometimes the disregard is pretty arrogant<br />but that I saw coming from the commercial sector or the wannabe<br />commercial sector. There was a site called "Dimestore Productions"<br />and it was pretty slanted to the latest and greatest. If you were<br />caught in some place like West Virginia you were pretty much out of<br />luck if you wanted to use the innovations the webmaster seemed to be<br />installing. He was pretty arrogant about it too. This is what I don't<br />like to see done. When people get very callous about getting things<br />to work. I know to some folks these are grungy little details best<br />left to "those who deal with such" but they are as important.<br />Have Fun,<br />Sends Steve<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:<br /><br /> >Have artists<br /> >really believed that a work was globally accessible simply because<br /> >it was on the net?<br /><br />seemed like that's what you were disgruntled about, but if that's not<br />a prob to you, then no prob..<br /><br /> >My feeling generally it that it still bandwidth (particularly<br /> >outside the US) that is the<br /> >primary mediator to what people can and cannot view rather than<br />browser.<br /><br />but even if the connection speed is slow, once it is downloads, files<br />will either work or not, regardless of the speed they got there. and<br />no matter what the speed, you'll still have to download the file<br />first. (streaming is essentially just downloading in pieces, rather<br />than all at one time) bandwidth has no effect in this case.<br /><br /> >I went to look at a friends stunning VRML datascapes the otherday,<br /> >changed browsers,<br /> >downloaded the software I needed, tweaked various settings and then<br /> >my processor<br /> >was too slow and it all fell over. Would you argue that he should he<br /> >stop making them?<br /><br />not at all. but he should acknowledge (and probably does) that you<br />are not his target audience.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> replied:<br /><br /> > Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I<br />remain <br /> > unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but<br />often <br /> > a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random numbers,<br /><br />I beg to differ. Different types of data have very different<br />"characteristics" and give very different results. I agree that from<br />your first-year undergrads you're going to get quite a bit of work that<br />focuses a bit too much on the technical aspect and is lacking in concept<br />but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. There's<br />a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver intruiging<br />concepts related to the data being used.<br /><br /> > All "important" work is about ideas;<br /><br />Using fancy tricks is nothing new to art. It's been there from day one<br />and there's a lot of "important" work that is "important" because of the<br />methods applied by the artist. I'll bet the first cave-painters said<br />something along the lines of, "Watch this guys, I'm going to make the<br />image of a horse magically appear on this wall!" The renaissance and<br />perspective. Which is regarded as more important today? The subject<br />matter or the technical aspect? Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all<br />about the method. The "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting,<br />there's something about it, but according to the books that wasn't<br />Seurat's priority. Method does involve ideas and a couple of centuries<br />down the road there's going to be "important" work from today where the<br />"method" has become an "idea".<br /><br />hope the kids feel better.<br />+ + +<br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben,<br /><br />cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.file.org.br/file2004/filescript/english/textos/lev.htm">http://www.file.org.br/file2004/filescript/english/textos/lev.htm</a><br />particularly the final section, "Meaningful Beauty: Data Mapping as<br />Anti-sublime"<br /><br />Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations more<br />accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources. Instead, he<br />seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity into the mapping<br />process – not an abandonment of abstraction altogether, but the pursuit of<br />a more intentional/resonant/subjective abstraction.<br /><br />peace,<br />curt<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On 6 Oct 2004, at 08:23, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > All "important" work is about ideas; even the works of<br /> > abstractExpressionists and 1970s minimalists made their own<br /> > provocative arguments.<br /><br />This is untrue in one very important way: art that is about ideas tends<br />to the illustrative or unartistic. Art that generates or is steeped in<br />ideas (aesthetics) is quite a different proposition. As you say it can<br />make provocative arguments. These may remain provocative decades or<br />centuries after they are first shown.<br /><br />Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about<br />feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery. Imagine<br />looking at Digital Art with this knowledge.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:<br /><br />going off from what liza and jess were saying, i should probably add<br />that i think it is fundamentally the foremost important aspect of any<br />art (and maybe even anything we do), to identify and mould our target<br />audience. one will spring up by default if we aren't conscious of<br />it, but the (only?) benefit of our deformed cortexes is that we can<br />choose to be responsible for our actions.<br /><br />making art where the artist is really the target audience, often the<br />only person it communicates a desired message, is fine. but folks<br />need to be honest about it and just show it to themselves. on the<br />other hand, if the target audience is wider, the artist has as much<br />need to communicate so that audience gets the message, as they would<br />want to speak the same language as the person they are buying a car<br />from. there is a big difference how we speak when we want/need to be<br />understood, we cater to whom we are speaking.<br /><br />some art now targets (speaks to) the gallery owners, curators, other<br />artists. but art seldom targets people outside that tight group.<br />this is fine, but artists need to take on responsibility of creating<br />a kind of elitism. to some degree it is already happening, and even<br />rhizome is really a members-only club. as artists, we can either<br />make work someone outside the art scene would enjoy, don't show<br />others our artwork, or lock the uninitiated out of the art scene<br />altogether, admit only those who are happy to invent messages and<br />attribute them to the work.<br /><br />abstract expressionists had no message. communicated to no one. but<br />greenberg made messages and projected them onto the work (the message<br />that there doesn't have to be a message). projecting messages is a<br />curious feature of the art world, but one the art world has tacitly<br />agreed on. so long as outsiders don't investigate, both parties are<br />satisfied, as if a real conversation took place. And outsiders<br />rarely interfere since they see nothing but to people gesticulating<br />wildly but in (what appears to be, though could arguably be a private<br />language) jibberish.<br /><br />on the other hand, if artists have nothing to say or aren't<br />successfully saying anything to non-artists, there's no reason they<br />can't just make art for storage. everyone CAN decide for themselves<br />who the target is, who they are really speaking to. what if there<br />was nothing wrong with not showing, not trying to communicate<br />specifically to others. what if there was just a lot less art out<br />there. would that be so bad?<br /><br />+ + + <br /><br />Jess Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com> replied:<br /><br /> Hi Liza,<br /> <br /> > I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond<br /> > their immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not<br /> > even the people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting<br /> > institutions and the like) understand the difference between creating<br /> > your own metasoftware in Java so you can create software art versus a<br /> > person who gets their hands on Flash and makes an animation. To this<br /> > day I find myself saying at art openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier<br /> > is not an animation. It's software creating the art."  To which they<br /> > most inevitably get the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces. <br /> > Ugh.<br />I'm very intrested in what you say here and I hoping to raise an issue that<br />has bothered me for a while. I suspect your immediate reaction will be to<br />disagree because I am going to talk about the art object but bear with<br />me..:)<br />My  observation is that it seems to me that artists, particularly those form<br />whose work is engaged is in the technology/process as art have an enormous<br />desire for *understanding* by the viewer (be the gallery curator or joe<br />bloggs).  Not enjoyment, engagement, interest, curiosity, admiration<br />(although liked) but understanding.  Non- process led artists seem less<br />concerened about this - possibly because they don't understand it all<br />themselves:) <br />What confuses me is,  process-led artists are often pioneers, and may have<br />taken years to get to the stage when they can *do-what-they-do* but that<br />they feel frustrated and disappointed when others don't 'get it'; Feel<br />slandered when their innovative processes are mistaken for *lessor* ones -<br />although their process may often be entirely new, radical and/or complex. <br />My dilemma seems to be that alongside this frustration, the case seems to be<br />being made that without  understanding there can be no longevity for net.art<br />- or at least process led net.art.<br />I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects outside of<br />net.object where this is apparent. Obviously there are  examples of<br />process-led genres within art but I've been asking myself wether these<br />works/artists that achieved longevity did so because of an understanding of<br />the process or the accessibility. By accessibility, I mean could the viewer<br />engage with either of the process or the resulting art.object: be that<br />aesthetically, theoretically or conceptually etc (even without<br />understanding).  Of course, technology has always had the *advantage* of the<br />*wow factor* which can circumnavigate the understanding or  engagement of <br />the art object but *wow* is by its very natural temporary. I simply cannot<br />think of an example of an art *ism* or *movement* that was received with<br />understanding at this stage in its development but the reason it became a<br />*movement* or *ism* does seem to be an engagement. However, only digital<br />works seem to be *relying* on understanding for longevity and support and to<br />be honest, seems to see engagement as secondary.<br />I suppose the root of my being uncomfortable with your email is this: Why is<br />it a problem that people think that Levin/Simon/Napier is animation - they<br />might think that tempera is a town in sussex and bronze casting is something<br />you when you fish - is that stopping them accessing, appreciating and<br />enjoying the artwork on a level? What is most worthwhile for the artist<br />understanding or engagement? What will lead to longevity and support -<br />understanding or engagement?<br />What I think I am trying to say in my normal stream of colloquial verbal<br />diarrhea is: did they like it? If they did, do they really need to<br />understand it?<br />In relation to this, this is the part that mostly caught my attention…<br /> > Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the<br /> > market" as  corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art<br /> > is about the object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of<br /> > making an art "object" out of what is basically electricity, falls<br />unto <br /> > you as well. <br /> > So you find yourself in a situation in which you've just<br /> > built from the ground up a meta-software that makes more software that<br /> > is then what we call "software art", but nobody –not even your<br />peers– <br /> > now about it because you've been focused on showing the final object<br /> > and not the process. And because you've spent all that time on the art<br /> > as object motif, your work –because it moves on a screen– is still<br /> > being seen by the audience immediately outside of the net/software art<br /> > clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves.<br />But engagement (ie they 'liked it') naturally comes before understanding<br />unless you are a part of the creation of the 'ism' or 'movement itself. Why<br />should net.art be different in the way than any other art form even though<br />the art may be more diverse and our locations global?<br /> > You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the<br />"proven" art <br /> > forms, why should people understand what your work is about?<br />But even if you were working in a complex new way in a *proven* form, would<br />you expect understanding anyway? Wouldn't you expect to have to (for a long<br />time anyway) repeat and explain until more people were able to take on the<br />explanations…?<br /> The speed of change,development and diversity in net.art reflects our<br />technology and our time, but the people [viewers] are the same as they ever<br />were, at best - mildly interested and mildly excited until the work<br />permeates the culture on a historical and sociological level. There simply<br />hasn't been the time for this to happen yet surely? The process may be new,<br />the artform may be new but its interesting that you used the word 'proven'.<br />Surely, the only thing that 'proves' an artform is longevity and its simply<br />too early to have achieved that yet.<br /><br /> <br /> > Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as<br />a <br /> > space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most<br /> > have not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is<br /> > Rhizome and all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw<br /> > into your site and this is what each and every one of you should be<br /> > doing.  Let the flaming begin. There, I have said it.<br /> > I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art<br /> > process can create is the only way to not just push your work forward,<br /> > but to bring to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly<br /> > pursue.<br /> <br /> > The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They<br />are <br /> > processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites<br /> > should not be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as<br /> > well; places where each artist can reveal their work and play, their<br /> > expertise and discoveries, their trials and tribulations.<br /> <br />Totally agree with all of this but I would beg that it is remembered that<br />the viewers  in these human process need more than explanation and a<br />revelation - they need access: to the works, to the diversity, to the net<br />itself. This requires platforms which require artists collaborating and<br />building them, not just in university conferences, gallery talks where the<br />same handful of speakers are shared globally but public spaces. I guess I'm<br />talking about accessible public portals as well as personal ones. On a non<br />sequitur that's why I still think rhizome membership fees are such a bad<br />idea<br /> > Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words.<br /> > <br /> > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social<br /> > technologies into artists sites.<br /> > absolutely agree.<br /> > It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and<br />quite <br /> > frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because<br /> > software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations,<br /> > never fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a<br />video <br /> > or slides of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are<br />working <br /> > with old paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time<br />do <br /> > not have the "right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware"<br /> > to run most net/software art in the first place. So they go with what<br /> > they think will be easy for them to use to judge the work<br /> > –misunderstandings and hilarity ensues. UGH.<br />You see -  this frightens the life out of me: that you haven't written an<br />art proposal in two years -<br />because this is a vital way you will reach the understanding that *you* are<br />looking for: by getting the work seen as much a humanly possible.  Who cares<br />that *they* don't understand the process if they hand over the<br />grant/exhibition space - you can give talks, papers, interviews when you've<br />got the money to the make the work,  it's in their space and people are<br />viewing it.  Who cares if they ask for slides if it means you will get them<br />in a room to listen to your ideas? Of course its part of the ridiculous<br />antiquated gallery system and there is no way they can get any real<br />impression of the work  but  it is the lousy inheritance of the fine art<br />world. One day they may enter the 21st century (even if they entered the<br />20th it would be nice) but that's the system we're shackled with. Do you<br />really think that will be able to access the language of a blog or wiki if<br />they can't access the internet itself? If they can't handle a screenshot how<br />are they going to handle the screen unless you show them…?<br />This is what brings me down to earth: in 2004 in the digital age I have just<br />inducted a group of 1year art/media/performance students. Do you know what I<br />had to do for the first session…teach them how to set up an email account<br />and show them what a forum was and how to sign in! These are educated, 18-25<br />year olds,  in an affluent area of the south of england. If they have hardly<br />got their foot on the digital ladder how are the upper-middle aged,<br />technophobic, cosseted curatorial army that's out there going to access<br />net.art unless we lead them physically by the hand. I know there are<br />exceptions to this, I know many children are digital savvy at seven and a<br />rising number global curators who are devouring work and  lists with<br />excitement but I still hold that they are the still the exception.<br /> > I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato<br /> > to post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the<br /> > machines. Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That<br /> > sort of thing. I'm even fixing to have guest writers write about their<br /> > favourite pieces… And in due time to raise resources for new<br />projects.<br /> > <br /> > I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life<br /> > conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See<br /> > what opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find<br /> > out what happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook<br /> > to salon, all in one swoop of technology.<br /> > <br />I think this is fantastic, can only be a good thing and one vital part of<br />what is needed - but please, please start writing proposals again as well.<br /> Its not enough to have innovative, beautiful work if the people whose<br />understanding and appreciation *you* crave cannot access it. It is the irony<br />of the accessible net that it has become so inaccessible. I truly believe<br />that critical to the longevity of net art is not understanding but<br />platforms, doorways, spaces and people physically handing out invites. I<br />know alongside the potential, the technology, the multi user and the global<br />possibilities - accessibility to the work was [is] one of the primary<br />dynamics of being a net.artist. But with the proliferation of e-z-search and<br />adware we are getting harder and harder to find. I know your visitor numbers<br />would make mine look like a bus queue, but the slowness of the trickle-down<br />affect to 'understanding' makes it a priority to all net artists to spend<br />time gaining opportunities to show beyond the net -  to lead people back to<br />it.<br />Added to this technology is expensive, we all need grants and opportunities<br />and (please god!) time to do what we want to do. The more net.artists<br />prioritise getting their own opportunities the more will be created. The<br />more oppertunities, the more chances for the works to engage and<br />understanding to come. Its frustrating, time consuming and the majority of<br />the time boring as hell - but without signposts and explanation to allow<br />them to engage,  I simply think we are asking to much of people to<br />understand and support what they simply don't know how to access and<br />longevity will not be obtainable.<br />best as ever, and waiting for the flames:)<br />jess.<br /> o<br />/^\ rssgallery.com<br /> ][<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br />GoodDay,<br /><br /> > curt:<br /> > I agree with Rob and Pall here. There is a way to critically discuss<br /> > abstraction that may involve engaging in formalistic/graphic design<br /> > aesthetics that seem outmoded to you. So we can't discuss them<br /> > because such critical discourse is not currently en vogue? But aren't<br /> > we the ones (critics, artists, curators) who shape where the critical<br /> > dialogue is going?<br /><br />Yes, and that's exactly the point. So if you find aesthetic discussions<br />titillating ("ooh, more brown!" … "too many boxes!"), by all means,<br />keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld. I'm just trying to publicly raise the<br />issue of whether this is how we want to let newMedia come to be<br />defined. If it nM does become pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable<br />data pictures, I won't be a part of it, and neither will a lot of<br />people who are currently engaged with this discussion. It's great that<br />you bring up graphicDsign, because one needs only to look at your local<br />graphicDsign [college/department] to see the Jihad that's being waged<br />on ideas there. Kids arrive in graphicDsign classes expecting to<br />receive training in industry-standard applications and be kept<br />up-to-date on industry design trends, so that they may graduate with<br />sufficient "mastery" to be employable as designers directly out of<br />college. The expectation is that you can be trained as a Dsigner just<br />like you can be trained as a XeroxMechanic. Given the radical artistic,<br />conceptual and social hystorical hyperthreads that make up the<br />area-of-activity we delineate (for economic reasons) as "graphicDsign,"<br />I find myself dismayed that the graduates of these programs are more<br />excited about software upgrades than the ideas they're working with.<br /><br />And this is your model for how you want to talk about nM? Does anyone<br />else have a problem with this?<br /> > If things on the net are becoming more hodge-podged and interbred with<br /> > pop culture, what's to keep art critics from approaching such pieces<br /> > as rock music critics or graphic design aesthetes?<br /><br />You miss the point that this interbreeding affects the critics as well,<br />so that our artCritics can approach work not from "defined"<br />perspectives (like that of a rock-onlyCritic, art-onlyCritic,<br />Dsign-only enthusiast), but from a perspective that realizes how much<br />everything bleeds together. So an artCritic approaching a piece as a<br />rockCritic is simply being fatuous in [his/her] disregard for the<br />dynamics which come to form creative "pieces" in our world.<br /> > Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol LeWitt and taking his<br /> > instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously abstract level.<br /><br />Sure, but Casey's praxis is grounded in broader artEducational and<br />artwarePopulism concepts, and is anything but design for design's sake.<br /><br /> > None of this seems intellectually bereft to me, nor does it seem out<br /> > of bounds or culturally irrelevant. If one current artistic mode is<br /> > the remix, then we can expect to see earlier aspects of the "art<br /> > tapestry" show up in the mix as well (whether consciously or<br /> > unconsciously).<br /><br />Of course – to be flip, that's all part of the blender we call life.<br />In liken, the system I put in place on criticalartware.net, those<br />partially digested chunks present themselves as part of hyperConnextive<br />informationSuperTrails. The piece I'm missing is how to understand this<br />pureFormalist newMedia in relation to those hyperChunks. Pall gave us<br />the "TMI" model, but I don't think that's adequate to fuel or sustain<br />this much discussion. If there is more intellectual life to<br />FlashFormalism, someone please fill me in!<br /><br /> > curt:<br /> > But is the sum of the worth of their art the fact that they were<br /> > remembered for it? Had they not been remembered, would their art<br /> > still have value as art? Can it still be appreciated out of the<br /> > context of its production? There are plenty of artists who have<br /> > gained notoriety for their craft and invention, working within a<br /> > pre-defined tradition they didn't pioneer. Pre-impressionist artists,<br /> > craftspeople in local artisan subcultures.<br /><br />Yeah, and they all weave their own beautiful life narratives. However,<br />out of convenience, we don't attempt to talk about Every Single Artist<br />Who Ever Lived, so we tend to focus on the ones who ignited our<br />imaginations by doing things differently, and challenging the<br />assumptions of the day. Those are the people we remember and discuss.<br />No one wants to downplay the importance of an artisan who lived in 1825<br />and passed the traditional weaving style from one generation to<br />another. However, it's facetious to suggest that [he/she] individually<br />deserves the same amount of time in our discussion as Sol LeWitt, for<br />example.<br /><br />Further, I take special exception to your implication that<br />pre-Impressionist artists (ie, ALL art before the 19th century?) didn't<br />"pioneer" anything of note, and are remembered for their "craft and<br />invention." In reality, pre-Impressionist art is chock full of<br />conceptualism, scandals, controversy and vigorous intellectual debate.<br />They may all just look like Jesus paintings to you, but back then, even<br />small formal differences were considered astonishing. Perspective was a<br />ground-shakingly radical idea at one point. Paintings and sculptures<br />had the raw visceral power that movies tend to claim today; they moved<br />women to faint, men to kill, and artists to be ex-communicated. The<br />idea that you would lump this group with craftspeople and artisans<br />demonstrates a ghastly mischaracterization of artHystory.<br /><br /> > curt:<br /> > So you assert. Here are some contrary voices:<br /><br />Have you ever heard of "anti-marketing marketing?" This is the strategy<br />where you position yourself as against the system in order to catch the<br />anti-marketing demographic in your audience. Take for example the<br />Sprite ad campaigns of the past few years, which for the most part<br />position themselves as beyond the hype – the message is "drink<br />whatever you want to! Just obey your thirst!"<br /><br />Same deal here. After (and during) the 1960s, people were growing tired<br />of an art world crowded with "hippies," over-expressiveness,<br />politicization and didactics. Minimalism was a knee-jerk reaction to<br />that time, and many artists saw themselves as antiConcept, antiArt,<br />antiCriticism. How embarrassing it must have been for them to be so<br />hungrily swallowed and digested by the conceptual artCriticism machine<br />they seemed to dislike so much.<br /><br />I won't bother to address each artist, as this could go on forever, but<br />each of the artists you mention raised important questions and sparked<br />immense debate, even if their work did most of the speaking. It's<br />ludicrous to suggest they weren't engaged in the intellectual<br />discussions of their times.<br /><br /> > Challenging by whose criteria? As Pall points out, abstraction of<br /> > data flows can be particularly challenging from several angles beyond<br /> > just pure abstraction. Here are a few pieces to consider:<br /><br />Okay, lets consider them.<br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://textarc.org">http://textarc.org</a> (from a lit crit angle)<br /><br />This is a fantastic tongue-in-cheek piece from my perspective, but it<br />is absolutely not abstract, nonConceptual, or formalist. This work<br />engages with many debates, from ontological cartography and the<br />problems with attempting to map concepts, to the struggle for<br />interfaces to navigate such a multiVerse of meaning. criticalartware<br />has a somewhat similar navigational system that allows a fixed-2D<br />mapping of the relationships between all of our nodes:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.criticalartware.net/lib/liken/interfaces/nodemap/">http://www.criticalartware.net/lib/liken/interfaces/nodemap/</a><br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html">http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html</a> (from a synesthetic<br /> > angle)<br /><br />And you present yet another [navigational/cartographic] interface work<br />which is neither abstract, nonConceptual or formalist. "The Shape of<br />Song" is a fascinating way to [visualize/navigate] the patterns of<br />music, and clearly has much to say.<br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/rsg">http://rhizome.org/rsg</a> (from a play angle)<br /><br />All of Radical Software Group's work, or Carnivore in particular?<br />Carnivore is a particularly bad choice for you to hold up as an<br />[abstract/nonConceptual/formalist] posterChild. Carnivore as a<br />[project/platform] has a clear political and conceptual message about<br />government and surveillance, and as it does nothing on its own, is<br />indeed almost 100% conceptual – before you can see or hear anything,<br />you have to use a "client" to interpret the network data. These clients<br />range from the conceptual to the pure formalist, but I'm not sure you<br />can pin that on RSG – after all, Carnivore is a complete conceptual<br />artWork even without any clients, but the clients depend completely on<br />Carnivore both conceptually and technically.<br /><br /> > curt:<br /> > I'm not sure which critics you're talking about and which artists your<br /> > talking about here. Anyway, is it the artist's role to give critics<br /> > "interesting" fodder?<br /><br />Are you joking or not? Regardless, its the artist's role to make work<br />which she is interested in, but it is her peer's role to provide<br />criticism, discussion, debate, community and inspiration. I'd like to<br />see more criticism and debate happening in our community.<br /><br /> > Sweet prose. Well played.<br /><br />Thank my mother the Buddhist CyberRhetorician. ;)<br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/</a><br /><br />I can only play amateurCritic to your URIs for so long, Cloninger! :)<br />Briefly looking at the above URI, I can't discern whether or not the<br />authors of a couple of these pieces are being ironically retarditaire<br />or if they are straightforward creative expressions. A few of them are<br />fully situated in an artWorld context, some are by well-known artists.<br />Clearly all of them draw from the globalVisualCultureMashup, and none<br />of them are "outsiders."<br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/</a><br /><br />Some (well, really all) of these pieces are strikingly beautiful, but<br />like candy bars, after the sweet taste, I'm left hungry for substance.<br />None of the works [upset/surprised/confused/challenged] me sufficiently<br />for me to remember them. That's my personal experience, but I'm<br />suggesting that there are others who are unsatisfied with this<br />FlashFormalism.<br /><br /> > I totally agree. But then some work doesn't lend itself well to<br /> > contemporary critical dicussion. Is the problem with the work, or<br /> > with contemporary modes of critical discussion?<br /><br />You keep suggesting that contemporary critical discussion is somehow at<br />fault for not "getting" the real work happening, when in reality, this<br />is contemporary critical discourse right here on this list. If the<br />people on this list respond to the work in silence, I would suggest<br />that they aren't significantly affected by it, and I think that is<br />indeed a problem with the work.<br /><br /> > If all you can say of work like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net">http://www.complexification.net</a> is<br /> > that it's FlashFormalism [insert silence], then I don't know where we<br /> > go from there.<br /><br />It may be a fine distinction, but while I love the complexification.net<br />work as astonishingly gorgeous [images/applets], I would hesitate to<br />discuss the pieces in an art context. They are unmistakably powerful<br />demonstrations of the power of a systemsApproach to artMaking, so<br />certain people may find them shocking, and perhaps that's enough to<br />entertain some discussion of them in an art context. Maybe they're<br />inspirational enough that we don't need to even question their<br />relevance. However, I can't imagine anybody from this list being very<br />intellectually stimulated by these works; anyone with a passing<br />familiarity with newMedia (or computerHystory) has seen bales full of<br />work like this (albeit not always as beautiful).<br /><br />If it isn't FlashFormalism, what does it have to say? Lets compare it<br />to some very similar works. What about Doug James' animation of 3,600<br />chairs stacked up and then colliding and deforming when knocked down? (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/play.html?pg=3">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/play.html?pg=3</a> and<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/bdtree/etheater/">http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/bdtree/etheater/</a> ) Here is a<br />rule-based system that is producing a jaw-dropping and aesthetically<br />astonishing feat, to the service of nothing but itself, just like<br />complexification.net. What about Massive, Weta Digital's crowd<br />simulation software ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.massivesoftware.com/">http://www.massivesoftware.com/</a> )?<br /><br />I pose the question back to this community: if you're bored enough to<br />be reading so far, is the complexification.net work intellectually<br />stimulating? If it isn't, should we bother talking about it, and if so,<br />why exactly?<br /> > Agreed (and so pithily expressed!) Indeed, art is the one realm of<br /> > human activity where abstraction and formalism can *speak* into the<br /> > cultural "dialogue." But now it's time to muzzle them and move toward<br /> > a more didactic coceptualism because… ?<br /><br />Wake up – no one's muzzling them – they just have nothing to say! I<br />just want everyone to realize the path that newMedia is on, namely the<br />screensaverization of our field. If anyone here is interested in real<br />ideas, we need to get criticality back, and start raising a ruckus<br />about all this technoPositivism and intellectually bankrupt<br />abstraction!<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br />On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:<br /><br />> There's a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver<br />> intruiging concepts related to the data being used.<br /><br />EXACTLY. There must be a [challenging/intriguing/upsetting] conceptual<br />element for anyone to take interest.<br />> Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all about the method. The<br />> "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting, there's something about<br />> it, but according to the books that wasn't Seurat's priority. Method<br />> does involve ideas and a couple of centuries down the road there's<br />> going to be "important" work from today where the "method" has become<br />> an "idea".<br /><br />I totally agree – Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially<br />radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and<br />Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower"<br />class. It's also a good example to bring up, because Seurat developed<br />his own idiosyncratic [process/methodology] – I can guarantee that if<br />Seurat were alive today, he wouldn't be working in FlashMX. Flash makes<br />you far to complicit to make a statement as radical as Seurat's;<br />Macromedia loves when people create pretty pictures in Flash.<br /><br />So the point is that abstraction fueled by data is not automatically<br />interesting; there need to be, as you say "intriguing concepts related<br />to the data being used," and a method that "involve ideas."<br /><br />Ideas: 1<br />FlashFormalism: 0<br /><br />BUSTED.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Liza Sabater <blogdiva@culturekitchen.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 10:25 America/New_York, Southworth, Kate<br /> wrote:<br /> > Liza, this is exactly the sort of space we are exploring in our<br />work, <br /> > although possibly from a slightly different perspective, so if you<br /> > find anything that interests you in fuorange and the accompanying<br /> > paper we would really love to work with you on it.<br /><br />Hey Kate,<br /><br />Long time no read! I've been following the thread but am in the middle<br />of putting together some punditry about the debates and dealing with<br />some work. I'll respond fully soon.<br /><br />FYI, I am really serious about setting up people with blogs. I'll have<br />more to follow soon.<br /><br />Best,<br />l i z a<br />+ + +<br /><br />Liza Sabater <blogdiva@culturekitchen.com> replied:<br /> <br /> On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 19:25 America/New_York, Jess Loseby wrote:<br /><br /> > I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects<br />outside of net.object where this is apparent.<br /> <br />The short answer: Yes.<br /><br />Where: Education. Parenting. Business. Journalism. Health. Software<br />development –just to name a few.<br /><br />More soon. <br />/ l i z a <br /><br />+ + +<br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 3:27 PM, ryan griffis wrote:<br /><br /> > What is this "real criticalDiscourse" that you feel is lacking in the<br /> > art world? i'm not being antagonistic to "art about ideas" - what<br /> > isn't about ideas?<br /><br />Well, I think all art is about ideas, regardless of its creators<br />intentions, just as I think all art tells a political story as well.<br />The issue I'm raising is whether this FlashFormalism is about the ideas<br />we find interesting, and if the discussion around it is critical<br />enough. You put me in a tricky position; I don't want to call anyone<br />out individually, because it's not about individual artworks, it's<br />about the tone of the discussion.<br /><br />One problem with this kind of work is that by masking or disavowing its<br />[ideas/politics], it becomes susceptible to projection. So people like<br />me will look at it and say "wow, in a time of war, in a US election<br />year, with a shadowGov (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850236.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850236.stm</a> ) doing<br />gawdKnowsWhat, with corporations worldWide gaining power and influence<br />at alarming rates, with oppressive software patent policies threatening<br />developers, with an artWorld eagerly looking to us for the<br />nextBigThing, THIS person has decided to generate random colors based<br />on mouse location in FlashMX, to the delight of Macromedia. Sounds like<br />a gigantic THUMBS UP to the status quo."<br /><br />Granted, I'm an ass. That doesn't change the fact that "no statement"<br />is in fact one of the most telling.<br /><br /> > But i'm reading this looking for the stakes - what's (y)our investment<br /> > in any of this?<br /><br />My investment is a decade of engaging with the web. I'd like to see<br />newMedia thrive, and to do that we need to breed our own critical<br />voices rather than wait for the artWorld to supply them. The discourse<br />I do see isn't very critical. I see a lot of show+tell.<br /><br /> > If you're saying that ReadMe, Rhizome, etc are where this<br /> > work/activity is being done, is your criticism about larger inclusion?<br /> > What is it you think people should be talking/writing about that they<br /> > aren't?<br /><br />No, we have enough inclusion. There are no barriers beyond the<br />digitalDivide that prevent anyone from engagingWith && contributingTo<br />newMedia. The problem is that as a community, we don't understand where<br />we came from, and we're not very concerned with where we're going.<br /><br /> > But this talk about "the current moment" sounds an awful lot like the<br /> > telecommunications industry.<br /><br />Interesting – what would you prefer?<br /><br /> > If Koons was producing his paintings via cell phone or bluetooth<br /> > enabled art, would he be more relevant to the discussion?<br /><br />At the moment, according to this crowd, unfortunately yes – but if we<br />were a little more critical, I would think it would be a resounding NO.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:29 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations<br /> > more accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources.<br /> > Instead, he seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity<br /> > into the mapping process – not an abandonment of abstraction<br /> > altogether, but the pursuit of a more intentional/resonant/subjective<br /> > abstraction.<br /><br />mosDef. I would never argue that art needs to have any<br />[representational/scientific/scrutable/"accurate"] aspects, but if you<br />are going to deal with abstraction, you must do it with an<br />understanding of the hystorical threads of abstraction (so that you are<br />aware of the references you will make) and the hystorical threads of<br />newMedia (for the same reasons). Then, if the work doesn't speak for<br />itself, you have to be prepared to discuss the connexions you made.<br /><br />To this viewer, it's not enough to say "it's abstract, you know, its<br />all graphic designy and shit. You like graphic design, right?"<br />Especially when this is accompanied with the implication that<br />graphicDsign is somehow apolitical and purely formal.<br /><br />This particular [viewer/listener] is not likely to be profoundly moved<br />by abstraction ever in his lifetime, and whatever your excuses for<br />making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful<br />statement. So if there are ideas to back up this FlashFormalism,<br />they're going to have to be way more convincing that "TMI"<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /><br /> > This is untrue in one very important way: art that is about ideas<br /> > tends to the illustrative or unartistic. Art that generates or is<br /> > steeped in ideas (aesthetics) is quite a different proposition. As you<br /> > say it can make provocative arguments. These may remain provocative<br /> > decades or centuries after they are first shown.<br /><br />I absolutely agree (except for the part about art about ideas tending<br />towards the unartistic). I'm not suggesting that art must be *about*<br />ideas (although there's plenty of good work that's about ideas), but<br />that art should at least *have* ideas or at least be the product of<br />intellectual pursuit.<br /><br /> > Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about<br /> > feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery.<br /><br />This business, I'm not so sure about…<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Jess Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com> replied:<br /><br /> Hi Liza, <br /><br /> > I believe it is time for net artists to stop pretending anybody beyond<br /> > their immediate peers understand what they are doing. Seriously. Not<br /> > even the people in most arts organizations (I'm thinking granting<br /> > institutions and the like) understand the difference between creating<br /> > your own metasoftware in Java so you can create software art versus a<br /> > person who gets their hands on Flash and makes an animation. To this<br /> > day I find myself saying at art openings, "No, that Levin/Simon/Napier<br /> > is not an animation. It's software creating the art." To which they<br /> > most inevitably get the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces.<br /> > Ugh. <br /><br />I'm very intrested in what you say here and I hoping to raise an issue that<br />has bothered <br />me for a while. I suspect your immediate reaction will be to disagree<br />because I am going <br />to talk about the art object but bear with me..:)<br /><br />My observation is that it seems to me that artists, particularly those form<br />whose work is <br />engaged is in the technology/process as art have an enormous desire for<br />*understanding* by the viewer (be the gallery curator or joe bloggs). Not<br />enjoyment, <br />engagement, interest, curiosity, admiration (although liked) but<br />understanding. Non-<br />process led artists seem less concerened about this - possibly because they<br />don't <br />understand it all themselves:)<br />What confuses me is, process-led artists are often pioneers, and may have<br />taken years <br />to get to the stage when they can *do-what-they-do* but that they feel<br />frustrated and <br />disappointed when others don't 'get it'; Feel slandered when their<br />innovative processes<br />are mistaken for *lessor* ones - although their process may often be<br />entirely new, <br />radical and/or complex. My dilemma seems to be that alongside this<br />frustration, the <br />case seems to be being made that without understanding there can be no<br />longevity for <br />net.art - or at least process led net.art.<br /><br />I wondered if there are any other parallels with the art.objects outside of<br />net.object <br />where this is apparent. Obviously there are examples of process-led genres<br />within art <br />but I've been asking myself wether these works/artists that achieved<br />longevity did so <br />because of an understanding of the process or the accessibility. By<br />accessibility, I mean<br />could the viewer engage with either of the process or the resulting<br />art.object: be that<br />aesthetically, theoretically or conceptually etc (even without<br />understanding). Of course,<br />technology has always had the *advantage* of the *wow factor* which can<br />circumnavigate the understanding or engagement of the art object but *wow*<br />is by its <br />very natural temporary. I simply cannot think of an example of an art *ism*<br />or <br />*movement* that was received with understanding at this stage in its<br />development but <br />the reason it became a *movement* or *ism* does seem to be an engagement.<br />However, <br />only digital works seem to be *relying* on understanding for longevity and<br />support and <br />to be honest, seems to see engagement as secondary.<br /><br />I suppose the root of my being uncomfortable with your email is this: Why is<br />it a problem <br />that people think that Levin/Simon/Napier is animation - they might think<br />that tempera is <br />a town in sussex and bronze casting is something you when you fish - is that<br />stopping <br />them accessing, appreciating and enjoying the artwork on a level? What is<br />most <br />worthwhile for the artist understanding or engagement? What will lead to<br />longevity and <br />support - understanding or engagement?<br /><br />What I think I am trying to say in my normal stream of colloquial verbal<br />diarrhea is: did <br />they like it? If they did, do they really need to understand it?<br /><br />In relation to this, this is the part that mostly caught my attention…<br /> > Think of the museum, the gallery, the academy, the audience and "the<br /> > market" as corporations as well. If you buy into the belief that art<br /> > is about the object and not the process, then a lot of the onus of<br /> > making an art "object" out of what is basically electricity, falls<br />unto <br /> > you as well. <br /> > So you find yourself in a situation in which you've just<br /> > built from the ground up a meta-software that makes more software that<br /> > is then what we call "software art", but nobody –not even your<br />peers– <br /> > now about it because you've been focused on showing the final object<br /> > and not the process. And because you've spent all that time on the art<br /> > as object motif, your work –because it moves on a screen– is still<br /> > being seen by the audience immediately outside of the net/software art<br /> > clique as animation or video because, you know, it moves.<br /><br />But engagement (ie they 'liked it') naturally comes before understanding<br />unless you are <br />a part of the creation of the 'ism' or 'movement itself. Why should net.art<br />be different in <br />the way than any other art form even though the art may be more diverse and<br />our <br />locations global? <br /><br /> > You can't blame them. If you do not distinguish what you do from the<br />"proven" art <br /> > forms, why should people understand what your work is about?<br /><br />But even if you were working in a complex new way in a *proven* form, would<br />you <br />expect understanding anyway? Wouldn't you expect to have to (for a long time<br />anyway) <br />repeat and explain until more people were able to take on the<br />explanations…? <br /> The speed of change,development and diversity in net.art reflects our<br />technology and <br />our time, but the people [viewers] are the same as they ever were, at best -<br />mildly <br />interested and mildly excited until the work permeates the culture on a<br />historical and <br />sociological level. There simply hasn't been the time for this to happen yet<br />surely? The <br />process may be new, the artform may be new but its interesting that you used<br />the word <br />'proven'. Surely, the only thing that 'proves' an artform is longevity and<br />its simply too <br />early to have achieved that yet.<br /><br /> > <br /> > Net Artists have been so caught up in the metaphor of the internet as<br />a <br /> > space for communication and social interaction that, ironically, most<br /> > have not really used it as so in their own art spaces. Yes, there is<br /> > Rhizome and all those artsy lists. But you cannot bring Rhizome Raw<br /> > into your site and this is what each and every one of you should be<br /> > doing. Let the flaming begin. There, I have said it.<br /><br /> > I truly believe that focusing on the conversations your art and art<br /> > process can create is the only way to not just push your work forward,<br /> > but to bring to light the artform you so lovingly/madly/cluelessly<br /> > pursue. <br /> > <br /> > The net is not just a space, and the web is not just a canvas. They<br />are <br /> > processes as well. They are because humans use them. Art Websites<br /> > should not be just galleries or studios. They need to be salons as<br /> > well; places where each artist can reveal their work and play, their<br /> > expertise and discoveries, their trials and tribulations.<br /> ><br /> <br />Totally agree with all of this but I would beg that it is remembered that<br />the viewers in <br />these human process need more than explanation and a revelation - they need<br />access: <br />to the works, to the diversity, to the net itself. This requires platforms<br />which require <br />artists collaborating and building them, not just in university conferences,<br />gallery talks <br />where the same handful of speakers are shared globally but public spaces. I<br />guess I'm <br />talking about accessible public portals as well as personal ones. On a non<br />sequitur <br />that's why I still think rhizome membership fees are such a bad idea<br /><br /> > Yes people, I'm talking about the four letter words.<br /> > <br /> > Whether it is a wiki or a blog, I am talking about bringing social<br /> > technologies into artists sites. ><br /><br />absolutely agree. <br /><br /> > It's been almost two years now since I wrote an art proposal, and<br />quite <br /> > frankly, I don't miss it. Those things are ghastly especially because<br /> > software art, being a subset of a subset of art in most foundations,<br /> > never fits all the requirements for documentation. So they want a<br />video <br /> > or slides of Shredder (I kid you not). In part because they are<br />working <br /> > with old paradigms of art, and in part because they most of the time<br />do <br /> > not have the "right browser" or the "right OS" or the "right hardware"<br /> > to run most net/software art in the first place. So they go with what<br /> > they think will be easy for them to use to judge the work<br /> > –misunderstandings and hilarity ensues. UGH.<br /><br />You see - this frightens the life out of me: that you haven't written an<br />art proposal in two<br />years - <br />because this is a vital way you will reach the understanding that *you* are<br />looking for: by <br />getting the work seen as much a humanly possible. Who cares that *they*<br />don't <br />understand the process if they hand over the grant/exhibition space - you<br />can give talks, <br />papers, interviews when you've got the money to the make the work, it's in<br />their space <br />and people are viewing it. Who cares if they ask for slides if it means you<br />will get them <br />in a room to listen to your ideas? Of course its part of the ridiculous<br />antiquated gallery <br />system and there is no way they can get any real impression of the work but<br />it is the <br />lousy inheritance of the fine art world. One day they may enter the 21st<br />century (even if <br />they entered the 20th it would be nice) but that's the system we're shackled<br />with. Do you <br />really think that will be able to access the language of a blog or wiki if<br />they can't access <br />the internet itself? If they can't handle a screenshot how are they going to<br />handle the <br />screen unless you show them…?<br /><br />This is what brings me down to earth: in 2004 in the digital age I have just<br />inducted a <br />group of 1year art/media/performance students. Do you know what I had to do<br />for the <br />first session…teach them how to set up an email account and show them what<br />a forum <br />was and how to sign in! These are educated, 18-25 year olds, in an affluent<br />area of the <br />south of england. If they have hardly got their foot on the digital ladder<br />how are the <br />upper-middle aged, technophobic, cosseted curatorial army that's out there<br />going to <br />access net.art unless we lead them physically by the hand. I know there are<br />exceptions <br />to this, I know many children are digital savvy at seven and a rising number<br />global <br />curators who are devouring work and lists with excitement but I still hold<br />that they are <br />the still the exception.<br /><br /> > I've blogmothered potatoland.blog. The intention? For the Head Potato<br /> > to post some code and start conversations around it. Rant against the<br /> > machines. Maybe even get some people to work out a bug or two. That<br /> > sort of thing. I'm even fixing to have guest writers write about their<br /> > favourite pieces… And in due time to raise resources for new<br />projects. <br /> > <br /> > I'd love to try this experiment with more people. Be part of real-life<br /> > conversations started by artworks, but mediated through the blogs. See<br /> > what opportunities are opened up with this "new" socialization. Find<br /> > out what happens when an artist's site goes from portfolio to notebook<br /> > to salon, all in one swoop of technology.<br /> > <br />I think this is fantastic, can only be a good thing and one vital part of<br />what is needed - <br />but please, please start writing proposals again as well.<br /><br /> Its not enough to have innovative, beautiful work if the people whose<br />understanding <br />and appreciation *you* crave cannot access it. It is the irony of the<br />accessible net that it<br />has become so inaccessible. I truly believe that critical to the longevity<br />of net art is not <br />understanding but platforms, doorways, spaces and people physically handing<br />out <br />invites. I know alongside the potential, the technology, the multi user and<br />the global <br />possibilities - accessibility to the work was [is] one of the primary<br />dynamics of being a<br />net.artist. But with the proliferation of e-z-search and adware we are<br />getting harder and <br />harder to find. I know your visitor numbers would make mine look like a bus<br />queue, but <br />the slowness of the trickle-down affect to 'understanding' makes it a<br />priority to all net<br />artists to spend time gaining opportunities to show beyond the net - to<br />lead people back <br />to it. <br />Added to this technology is expensive, we all need grants and opportunities<br />and (please <br />god!) time to do what we want to do. The more net.artists prioritise getting<br />their own <br />opportunities the more will be created. The more oppertunities, the more<br />chances for <br />the works to engage and understanding to come. Its frustrating, time<br />consuming and the <br />majority of the time boring as hell - but without signposts and explanation<br />to allow them <br />to engage, I simply think we are asking to much of people to understand and<br />support <br />what they simply don't know how to access and longevity will not be<br />obtainable. <br /><br />best as ever, and waiting for the flames:)<br /><br />jess. <br /> o<br />/^\ rssgallery.com<br /> ][<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 5, 2004, at 3:06 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /> > It was initially set to happen at the Fine Arts Theater downtown where<br /> > they have been showing the short films, but the owner of the theatre<br /> > refused to host it because, in his own words, "there's no money in<br /> > interactivity." Which is hilarious now that the gaming industry makes<br /> > 3 times more money than Hollywood, but anyway.<br /><br />Sorry to be didactic, but is this really true? Every time I've looked<br />into these numbers, they're always incorrect comparisons because they<br />compare Hollywood's box office gross with video games' retail sales –<br />and completely ignore the billions that Hollywood makes through DVDs,<br />VHS tapes, and license replays of movies on TV, never mind selling all<br />those damned Matrix posters.<br /><br />I like me some video games, but I still do not believe they surpass<br />film as a cultural force. Why? Because whenever I want to talk about<br />video games I have to be careful not to dive into them too much if I'm<br />in a group of people who may not give a shit. (This often plays out on<br />gender lines a bit, but not always.) I never have to do that with<br />movies. I hear "I don't play video games" a lot more than I hear "I<br />don't watch movies".<br /><br />Francis Hwang<br />Director of Technology<br />Rhizome.org<br />phone: 212-219-1288x202<br />AIM: francisrhizome<br />+ + +<br /><br />Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 12:02 AM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /> > Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through the<br /> > sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have<br /> > great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious<br /> > social change). This is the interesting thing about outsider art and<br /> > one of the things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it be).<br /> > Human culture has changed a great deal, but individual humans have<br /> > been wired pretty much the same for a good while.<br /><br />Yup. I don't think its necessarily a given that new media arts can<br />become less ghetto-ized by being more closely associated with the arts<br />world as a whole. The art world doesn't seem to be very good at<br />de-ghettoizing itself.<br /><br />I think it's profoundly meaningful that MOMA's new admissions fee is<br />$20 – I have a lot of friends who never ever pay that much money to<br />get into somewhere unless they're going to see a big-name rock star<br />like Prince or Morrissey or Nick Cave. I'm sure that the MOMA people<br />did their market research and decided that the high admissions fee will<br />work out fine for them, but what does it portend for the ability of<br />just anybody to spend an afternoon carousing the galleries if they're<br />not already heavily invested in that world–i.e., they're an artist,<br />designer, dealer, critic, etc. …<br /><br />I look at the field of classical music and wonder if fine arts is<br />heading in that direction. Do you suppose we'll ever see the day when<br />people in the arts sit around fretting about how to get more young<br />people into art?<br /><br />Francis Hwang<br />Director of Technology<br />Rhizome.org<br />phone: 212-219-1288x202<br />AIM: francisrhizome<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />t.whid <twhid@twhid.com> added:<br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Francis Hwang wrote:<br /><br /> ><br /> > On Oct 6, 2004, at 12:02 AM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /> >> Art can speak individual to individual without proceeding through<br />the <br /> >> sanctioned filters of the "contemporary art world" and still have<br /> >> great value and "potency" (yea, even potency for ye olde precious<br /> >> social change). This is the interesting thing about outsider art<br />and <br /> >> one of the things I think the net is good for (if we'll let it<br />be). <br /> >> Human culture has changed a great deal, but individual humans<br />have <br /> >> been wired pretty much the same for a good while.<br /> ><br /> > Yup. I don't think its necessarily a given that new media arts can<br /> > become less ghetto-ized by being more closely associated with the arts<br /> > world as a whole. The art world doesn't seem to be very good at<br /> > de-ghettoizing itself.<br /><br />But still, new media is a ghetto within (or perhaps a suburb of) what<br />could be argued is the ghetto of the art world.<br /><br />I'm not sure if I buy the art world as ghetto. Exhibits A and B being<br />Barney and Currin at the Guggenheim. Anecdotally, people whom I know<br />aren't generally familiar with contemporary art visited these<br />exhibitions. And there are plenty of other 'blockbuster' exhibitions of<br />more established names (Picasso, Monet, blah, blah).<br /><br />But I'm ambivalent, it's hard not to notice that, generally speaking,<br />contemporary art has a very small footprint in American culture. But is<br />it because it's a ghetto? Or because it's a shining city on a hill?<br /><br /> ><br /> > I think it's profoundly meaningful that MOMA's new admissions fee is<br /> > $20 – I have a lot of friends who never ever pay that much money to<br /> > get into somewhere unless they're going to see a big-name rock star<br /> > like Prince or Morrissey or Nick Cave. I'm sure that the MOMA people<br /> > did their market research and decided that the high admissions fee<br /> > will work out fine for them, but what does it portend for the ability<br /> > of just anybody to spend an afternoon carousing the galleries if<br /> > they're not already heavily invested in that world–i.e., they're an<br /> > artist, designer, dealer, critic, etc. …<br /> ><br /> > I look at the field of classical music and wonder if fine arts is<br /> > heading in that direction. Do you suppose we'll ever see the day when<br /> > people in the arts sit around fretting about how to get more young<br /> > people into art?<br /><br />===<br /><twhid><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com">http://www.mteww.com</a></twhid><br />===<br />+ + +<br /><br />Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Francis. I haven't done any research. I just like to throw<br />around dramatic statistics that prove my point. (In this instance,<br />it was an independent film theatre, so I don't think it's much of a<br />stretch to say video games outsell independent films.)<br /><br />I found this article:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic</a><br />le_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1084486208944<br /><br />It seems like they are comparing gaming hardware+software sales to<br />movie box office revenue.<br /><br />I'd like to see a more detailed break down comparing game rentals,<br />movie rentals, etc.<br /><br />peace,<br />curt<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />t.whid <twhid@twhid.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 6, 2004, at 7:54 PM, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > I pose the question back to this community: if you're bored enough to<br /> > be reading so far, is the complexification.net work intellectually<br /> > stimulating?<br /><br />not to me.<br /><br />You're thoughtful reply was anything but boring and brought up many<br />good points that I hope to respond to/reply to/comment on…<br /><br /> > If it isn't, should we bother talking about it, and if so, why<br />exactly?<br /><br />There is nothing to talk about. It's not formally, conceptually or<br />aesthetically groundbreaking. It's pleasant. Even from a purely formal<br />graphic design angle it's not very progressive: How is it different from my<br />screensaver or iTunes visualizer<br />other than it uses much more tasteful colors?<br /><br />It's cool that a lot of it seems to be OSS.<br /><br />===<br /><twhid><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mteww.com">http://www.mteww.com</a></twhid><br />===<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On 7 Oct 2004, at 03:57, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > I absolutely agree (except for the part about art about ideas tending<br /> > towards the unartistic). I'm not suggesting that art must be *about*<br /> > ideas (although there's plenty of good work that's about ideas), but<br /> > that art should at least *have* ideas or at least be the product of<br /> > intellectual pursuit.<br /><br />In order for art to have ideas, for it to be critically interesting, it<br />must have some degree of autonomy and it must be problematic for<br />criticism (and language), of which it is the object. Critics (as we are<br />being here), must look at it and curse the artists' name because they<br />can see that there's something there, but they're going to have to<br />work out what it is rather than reel off<br />DeleuzeGuattariBaudrillardDerrida and go to bed early.<br /><br />This is not the difficult art argument. This is the good art argument.<br />;-)<br /><br />There are definite ideas in Flash formalism, and it is a definite<br />social product, more so than the dreary new media weekend marxism of<br />politically engaged net.art. The fact that FF defeats our critical<br />language yet is striking, engaging, is healthy for all concerned.<br /><br />Imagine a world in which formal, algorithmic, visual art was realistic,<br />necessary, even urgent. Now work back from that world to our own.<br /><br />Think of the impressionists, their tube paint and the new railroad<br />network that took them from Paris to the nearby scenery they painted.<br />Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and individualism.<br />Form follows function. Art has a social function. Cue jokes about<br />recursion and currying.<br /><br />These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are our<br />lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is dictated<br />to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The mapping is<br />defensible. Don't shoot the messengers. ;-)<br /><br /> >> Pollock's work isn't about paint any more than Kruger's is about<br /> >> feminist semiotics or Cezanne's is about apples and crockery.<br /> ><br /> > This business, I'm not so sure about…<br /><br />It'll grow on ya. ;-)<br /><br />- Rob.<br />+ + +<br /><br />jm Haefner <j.haefner@sbcglobal.net> added:<br /><br />Of course, the noble thing to do is work for one's own reasons, but today<br />how often is that really true? How can an artist be such without someone<br />knowing about their work in some way? Artist seems to presume some thing is<br />to be experienced that was created by them.<br /><br />Yes, the areas we choose to explore are purely our choice, but once it's put<br />out in the world it becomes something entirely different. If thought is<br />focused on the outside world viewing our work…it becomes about all that<br />goes along with it. Like the artist statement -now the work is not the<br />focus, but THE ARTIST.<br /><br />Culturally, I think we are setting up another form of audience targeting by<br />providing competitions. It's a kind of self censoring in reverse.  <br /><br />Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look at it<br />-don't you think.<br /><br />Jean<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On 7 Oct 2004, at 00:54, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > So if you find aesthetic discussions titillating ("ooh, more brown!"<br /> > … "too many boxes!"), by all means, keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld.<br /><br />There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and vacuous<br />prettiness. Critic beware. :-)<br /><br /> > I'm just trying to publicly raise the issue of whether this is how we<br /> > want to let newMedia come to be defined. If it nM does become<br /> > pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable data pictures, I won't be a<br /> > part of it, and neither will a lot of people who are currently engaged<br /> > with this discussion.<br /><br />Well nor will I but I don't think that's the issue here. Demanding<br />pre-existent cultural/critical/textual import of digital art is<br />demanding that it normalise itself with the entrenched values of the<br />academic/commerical artworlds. Illustration is not the opposite of<br />insignificance.<br /><br /> > Given the radical artistic, conceptual and social hystorical<br /> > hyperthreads that make up the area-of-activity we delineate (for<br /> > economic reasons) as "graphicDsign," I find myself dismayed that the<br /> > graduates of these programs are more excited about software upgrades<br /> > than the ideas they're working with.<br /><br />Feed them "Emigre". ;-)<br /><br /> > Of course – to be flip, that's all part of the blender we call life.<br /> > In liken, the system I put in place on criticalartware.net, those<br /> > partially digested chunks present themselves as part of<br /> > hyperConnextive informationSuperTrails. The piece I'm missing is how<br /> > to understand this pureFormalist newMedia in relation to those<br /> > hyperChunks. Pall gave us the "TMI" model, but I don't think that's<br /> > adequate to fuel or sustain this much discussion. If there is more<br /> > intellectual life to FlashFormalism, someone please fill me in!<br /><br />Inasmuchas it is not simply illustrating and confirming the<br />unreflective critical demands of cultural studies departments, ff is<br />potentially more critical than anything that simply mirrors<br />pre-existent "critical" virtues.<br /><br />We may have work to do if our language is not sufficient for the task.<br />That would be exciting for a critic, surely?<br /><br /> > Have you ever heard of "anti-marketing marketing?" This is the<br /> > strategy where you position yourself as against the system in order to<br /> > catch the anti-marketing demographic in your audience. Take for<br /> > example the Sprite ad campaigns of the past few years, which for the<br /> > most part position themselves as beyond the hype – the message is<br /> > "drink whatever you want to! Just obey your thirst!"<br /><br />All those early conceptual art pieces, just words and ideas, are highly<br />collectible now. ;-)<br /><br /> > I'd like to see more criticism and debate happening in our community.<br /><br />Definitely.<br /><br /> > If anyone here is interested in real ideas, we need to get<br /> > criticality back, and start raising a ruckus about all this<br /> > technoPositivism and intellectually bankrupt abstraction!<br /><br />I'm more concerned about asserting the supremacy of entrenched<br />critical/artworld values and textuality over digital art. There *is*<br />something there, or if there isn't, it's failure on terms that aren't<br />fully captured by a signification/prettiness opposition.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br /> ben wrote:<br /> >whatever your excuses for<br /> >making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful<br /> >statement.<br /><br />Oh the hyperbole! Play, hobbyism, a desire to create alternate worlds, a<br />desire to bring things into being, a desire to communicate, personal<br />therapy, intelleectual exploration, worship – all valid reasons to make<br />art, none having anything to do with making a powerful statement. Perhaps<br />the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful statement, but this<br />too shall pass.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /><br /> > In order for art to have ideas, for it to be critically interesting,<br /> > it must have some degree of autonomy and it must be problematic for<br /> > criticism (and language), of which it is the object.<br /><br />Sure, it must be problematic, and not just for critics. So what makes<br />you think FlashFormalism is problematic? The only thing problematic<br />about it is that it's not problematic whatsoever!<br /><br /> > Critics (as we are being here), must look at it and curse the artists'<br /> > name because they can see that there's something there, but they're<br /> > going to have to work out what it is rather than reel off<br /> > DeleuzeGuattariBaudrillardDerrida and go to bed early.<br /><br />Exactly. Yet there's no reason to curse the names of FlashFormalists.<br />The work is so MindNumbingly boring that I can barely remember their<br />names.<br /><br /> > There are definite ideas in Flash formalism, and it is a definite<br /> > social product, more so than the dreary new media weekend marxism of<br /> > politically engaged net.art. The fact that FF defeats our critical<br /> > language yet is striking, engaging, is healthy for all concerned.<br /><br />The assertation that FlashFormalism is striking and engaging is almost<br />rivals curtCloninger's riDONCulous suggestion that "outsider art" will<br />reinvigorate newMedia. FlashFormalism defeats our critical language?<br />Yes, in much the same way that cottonCandy defeats critical discourse<br />by being irrelevant.<br /><br /> > Imagine a world in which formal, algorithmic, visual art was<br /> > realistic, necessary, even urgent. Now work back from that world to<br /> > our own.<br /><br />Ok, here I go.<br /><br />…<br /><br />That was an interesting trip, but meanwhile, back on planetEarth,<br />FlashFormalism is anything but necessary and urgent.<br /><br /> > Think of the impressionists, their tube paint and the new railroad<br /> > network that took them from Paris to the nearby scenery they painted.<br /><br />That's an interesting way to look at it – I look at Impressionist work<br />and see a radical protest at the dawn of the machine age. If you think<br />their work was a joyful expression of how wonderful it was to take the<br />train and paint flowers, you're missing the only thing in those<br />paintings of interest to me. What I admire about them is the furiously<br />angry assault on the blackened industrial wastelands their cities had<br />become – so angry that even their brushstrokes rebelled against being<br />used as fully representational marks (like they were in the<br />assemblyLine of quick-cash portrait painting).<br /><br />The impressionists were not formalists.<br /><br /> > Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and individualism.<br /> > Form follows function.<br /><br />The AbExers were not formalists either.<br /><br /> > These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are our<br /> > lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is<br /> > dictated to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The<br /> > mapping is defensible.<br /><br />That's about half of an idea, but not nearly enough to warrant the<br />fullScale rejection of intellectual discourse and conceptualism. The<br />important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual, whether<br />you like it or not, because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will<br />step up to the plate and talk about this art, it's because not very<br />much is happening in anyone's brain as they ingest it.<br /><br /> > It'll grow on ya. ;-)<br /><br />Hopefully some of deesMemes will grow on you too :)<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Plasma Studii - uospn£ <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:<br /><br />mixing up replies from two posts here…<br />from twid:<br />There is nothing to talk about. It's not formally, conceptually or<br />aesthetically groundbreaking. It's pleasant. Even from a purely formal<br />graphic design angle it's not very progressive: how is it any different from<br />the screensaver on my Mac or the visualizer on my iTunes?<br /><br />How is it different from my screensaver or visualizer other than it uses<br />much more tasteful colors?<br /><br />jess pointed out an important distinction between "understanding" and<br />"enjoying". (both i would call "communicating", but that's a semantic<br />thing.) one major distinction seems to be made, art has an element to be<br />understood (a subjective argument, but one that we don't need to agree on)<br />and screen savers main goal is just to keep the screen looking interesting<br />when nothing else is happening.<br /><br />but this says more (between the lines). implies there is something better<br />about belonging to the category "art". if the screen saver mesmerizes<br />someone for 5 minutes and art with a concept loses their interest after 30<br />seconds, then why wouldn't we all want to call what we do screen savers?<br />what is the benefit or why do we aspire to engage one way but de-value<br />another? there is an unspoken sense here that "art" is a higher goal than<br />"screen savers". not that it is or isn't, but why?<br /><br />from jm haefner:<br />Of course, the noble thing to do is work for one's own reasons<br /><br />but fundamentally, why is that at all noble? why take the work out the<br />front door, then? if our only motivation is to satisfy ourselves. if you<br />make a painting purely to sell it for a profit, it is like any other job.<br />why then do we both, take it out the door and do it for reasons other than<br />pure profit? if it was only for personal satisfaction, there'd be no reason<br />to show anyone else.<br /><br />Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look at it<br />-don't you think.<br /><br />with many artists i have known, they would be heart broken to throw out the<br />paintings they did 20 years ago. the paintings are stored with the<br />assumption, the artist will continue to look at them periodically through<br />the years. not as a map of where they've been, but purely for their own<br />appreciation and enjoyment/interest.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br />On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /><br /> > There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and vacuous<br /> > prettiness. Critic beware. :-)<br /><br />Yes, but no one will flesh out for me why FlashFormalism isn't vacuous<br />prettiness. I'm eager to know. We've heard the TooMuchInformation!<br />explanation, but to me it rings hollow. Bueller?<br /><br /> > Demanding pre-existent cultural/critical/textual import of digital art<br /> > is demanding that it normalise itself with the entrenched values of<br /> > the academic/commerical artworlds. Illustration is not the opposite of<br /> > insignificance.<br /><br />Read more closely – I'm not trying to import newMedia into the<br />"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt, I'm trying to point<br />out that there's NO critical discourse happening around this work, and<br />I'm publicly asking why. I suspect the reason that FlashFormalism is<br />totally impossible to discuss is because, as t.whid points out, there's<br />nothing to discuss. It's oaklandStyle – no there there.<br /><br /> > Feed them "Emigre". ;-)<br /><br />They're too busy kerning ad copy for Starbucks at $100/hr to sit down<br />and read about the [implications/hystories/theories] of typefaces…<br /><br /> > Inasmuchas it is not simply illustrating and confirming the<br /> > unreflective critical demands of cultural studies departments, ff is<br /> > potentially more critical than anything that simply mirrors<br /> > pre-existent "critical" virtues.<br /><br />I think you may have just taken the Ridonculous Award from curt. Fuck<br />cultural studies. I'm asking this group, this meeting of the minds,<br />what is [critical/challenging/progressive] about FlashFormalism, and<br />the sound you hear is the deafening silence of apatheticShrugs.<br /><br /> > We may have work to do if our language is not sufficient for the task.<br /> > That would be exciting for a critic, surely?<br /><br />This is devastatingly depressing. There are so many discussions that<br />have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend<br />not to see them and start over with new language. As if the cybernetics<br />discussion in the earlyVideo moment isn't still relevant. As if the<br />hypertext discussion of the earlyHypermedia moment isn't still<br />relevant. As if "interactivity" and "cybernetics" are unrelated, and<br />unrelated to what's happening now. This is one of the main reasons I<br />built liken into criticalartware.net; from the very beginning we wanted<br />to be sure that we were connecting with and expanding upon existing<br />discussions that were directly relevant to the discussion of newMedia.<br /><br />Make up your own language if you like – have fun reinventing the wheel<br />and calling it something else. I'll keep working hard to<br />[continue/reexamine/revive/extend] the discussions you're so eager to<br />cast off.<br /><br /> > There *is* something there, or if there isn't, it's failure on terms<br /> > that aren't fully captured by a signification/prettiness opposition.<br /><br />I'm waiting…<br /><br />…Bueller?<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:43 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful<br /> > statement, but this too shall pass.<br /><br />Okay, but if the goal of FlashFormalism is not to be provocative and<br />engage with ideas, then lets stop talking about them that way. Until<br />someone gives me a reason not to, I'll refer to the purveyors of<br />FlashFormalism as FlashArtisans, and consider their intellectual weight<br />to be on a par with painted pottery.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben,<br /><br />one more round…<br /><br />ben:<br />So if you find aesthetic discussions<br />titillating ("ooh, more brown!" … "too many boxes!"), by all means,<br />keepOnRawxin'InTheFreeWorld. I'm just trying to publicly raise the<br />issue of whether this is how we want to let newMedia come to be<br />defined. If it nM does become pigeon-holed as nice-looking clickable<br />data pictures, I won't be a part of it, and neither will a lot of<br />people who are currently engaged with this discussion. It's great that<br />you bring up graphicDsign, because one needs only to look at your local<br />graphicDsign [college/department] to see the Jihad that's being waged<br />on ideas there. Kids arrive in graphicDsign classes expecting to<br />receive training in industry-standard applications and be kept<br />up-to-date on industry design trends, so that they may graduate with<br />sufficient "mastery" to be employable as designers directly out of<br />college. The expectation is that you can be trained as a Dsigner just<br />like you can be trained as a XeroxMechanic. Given the radical artistic,<br />conceptual and social hystorical hyperthreads that make up the<br />area-of-activity we delineate (for economic reasons) as "graphicDsign,"<br />I find myself dismayed that the graduates of these programs are more<br />excited about software upgrades than the ideas they're working with.<br /><br />And this is your model for how you want to talk about nM? Does anyone<br />else have a problem with this?<br /><br />curt:<br />you're arguing with a straw man. You're describing bad graphic design<br />education, but not all graphic design education is bad. Graphic design has<br />a rich history of interesting artistic discussion. Kandinsky, Klee, Albers,<br />Le Corbusier, Charles & Ray Eames, Tufte, Bruce Mau, Tibor Kalman, Stefan<br />Sagmeister.I'd even include McLuhan and John Maeda in there. You're trying<br />to drive a wedge between formalism and conceptualism that seems artificial.<br />Could brown squares somehow embody a concept? Of course. Anyway, it's not<br />an either/or. There are plenty of different kinds of new media art.<br />Abstraction is just one aspect. Last time I checked, New media art was not<br />in danger of being hijacked by graphic designers. If anything the scene<br />could use a bit more craft.<br />curt:<br />> Casey Reas is re-discovering Sol LeWitt and taking his<br />> instruction-based conceptualism to a more gorgeously abstract level.<br /><br />ben:<br />Sure, but Casey's praxis is grounded in broader artEducational and<br />artwarePopulism concepts, and is anything but design for design's sake.<br /><br />curt:<br />I'm not advocating design for desisgn's sake. You seemed to be dismissing<br />Casey's work as FlashFormalism. I was pointing out that it's not. Are you<br />agreeing with me?<br />ben:<br />out of convenience, we don't attempt to talk about Every Single Artist<br />Who Ever Lived, so we tend to focus on the ones who ignited our<br />imaginations by doing things differently, and challenging the<br />assumptions of the day. Those are the people we remember and discuss.<br /><br />curt:<br />In art history class those are the artists we discuss. But on contemporary<br />art bulletin boards we may discuss all sorts of off-the-radar contemporaries<br />making all sorts of art for all sorts of reasons, many of whom will never be<br />remembered, nor do they care to be remembered, nor are they making art in<br />hopes of being remembered. Such are the joys of a contemporary art scene.<br />ben:<br />Further, I take special exception to your implication that<br />pre-Impressionist artists (ie, ALL art before the 19th century?) didn't<br />"pioneer" anything of note, and are remembered for their "craft and<br />invention." <br /><br />curt:<br />hyperbolic rhetoric. I said, "There are plenty of artists who have gained<br />notoriety for their craft and invention, working within a pre-defined<br />tradition they didn't pioneer. Pre-impressionist artists, craftspeople in<br />local artisan subcultures."<br /><br />"plenty" is a far stretch from "all."<br />ben:<br />I won't bother to address each artist [dubuffet, magritte, beuys] , as this<br />could go on forever, but each of the artists you mention raised important<br />questions and sparked<br />immense debate, even if their work did most of the speaking. It's<br />ludicrous to suggest they weren't engaged in the intellectual<br />discussions of their times.<br /><br />curt:<br />you miss my point. I'm not saying they weren't important in their time.<br />I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with your<br />assertion that all good art is about ideas.<br />ben:<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://textarc.org">http://textarc.org</a> (from a lit crit angle)<br />This is a fantastic tongue-in-cheek piece from my perspective, but it<br />is absolutely not abstract, nonConceptual, or formalist.<br /><br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html">http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html</a> (from a synesthetic<br />> angle)<br />And you present yet another [navigational/cartographic] interface work<br />which is neither abstract, nonConceptual or formalist.<br /><br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/rsg">http://rhizome.org/rsg</a> (from a play angle)<br />Carnivore is a particularly bad choice for you to hold up as an<br />[abstract/nonConceptual/formalist] posterChild. Carnivore as a<br />[project/platform] has a clear political and conceptual message about<br />government and surveillance, and as it does nothing on its own, is<br />indeed almost 100% conceptual – before you can see or hear anything,<br />you have to use a "client" to interpret the network data. These clients<br />range from the conceptual to the pure formalist, but I'm not sure you<br />can pin that on RSG – after all, Carnivore is a complete conceptual<br />artWork even without any clients, but the clients depend completely on<br />Carnivore both conceptually and technically.<br /><br />curt:<br />I mention the above pieces particularly because they are *not* purely<br />abstract. I'm illustrating the fact that new media can successfully combine<br />elements of visual abstraction with concept. It's not an either/or.<br />Evidently we agree here.<br />ben:<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/outsider/</a><br /><br />I can only play amateurCritic to your URIs for so long, Cloninger! :)<br />Briefly looking at the above URI, I can't discern whether or not the<br />authors of a couple of these pieces are being ironically retarditaire<br />or if they are straightforward creative expressions. A few of them are<br />fully situated in an artWorld context, some are by well-known artists.<br />Clearly all of them draw from the globalVisualCultureMashup, and none<br />of them are "outsiders."<br /><br />curt:<br />not in a stric art brut sense. That would be impossible. But they are<br />outsiders to the net art scene.<br />ben:<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/">http://www.deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/</a><br /><br />Some (well, really all) of these pieces are strikingly beautiful, but<br />like candy bars, after the sweet taste, I'm left hungry for substance.<br />None of the works [upset/surprised/confused/challenged] me sufficiently<br />for me to remember them. That's my personal experience, but I'm<br />suggesting that there are others who are unsatisfied with this<br />FlashFormalism. <br /><br />curt:<br />it can't all be Debussey. Sometimes a modicum of t.rex is required.<br />"My name is bubblegum<br />I live for moon and sun<br />Young and so much fun<br />Life has just begun."<br />- Sonic Youth<br />Is it art? Whatever.<br />ben:<br />You keep suggesting that contemporary critical discussion is somehow at<br />fault for not "getting" the real work happening, when in reality, this<br />is contemporary critical discourse right here on this list. If the<br />people on this list respond to the work in silence, I would suggest<br />that they aren't significantly affected by it, and I think that is<br />indeed a problem with the work.<br /><br />curt:<br />the people on this list respond to in-depth critical analysis of most any<br />piece of new media artwork with inordinate silence. it's the nature of the<br />list.<br />Ben:<br />It may be a fine distinction, but while I love the complexification.net<br />work as astonishingly gorgeous [images/applets], I would hesitate to<br />discuss the pieces in an art context. They are unmistakably powerful<br />demonstrations of the power of a systemsApproach to artMaking, so<br />certain people may find them shocking, and perhaps that's enough to<br />entertain some discussion of them in an art context. Maybe they're<br />inspirational enough that we don't need to even question their<br />relevance. However, I can't imagine anybody from this list being very<br />intellectually stimulated by these works; anyone with a passing<br />familiarity with newMedia (or computerHystory) has seen bales full of<br />work like this (albeit not always as beautiful).<br /><br />curt:<br />A pox on your shocking, challenging, intellectually stimulating critera, Ben<br />Syverson! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in<br />your philosophy.<br />ben:<br />Wake up – no one's muzzling [the contemporary abstractionists] – they just<br />have nothing to say!<br /><br />John Cage:<br />I have nothing to say and I am saying it.<br />Ben:<br />The <br />important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual, whether<br />you like it or not, because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will<br />step up to the plate and talk about this art, it's because not very<br />much is happening in anyone's brain as they ingest it.<br /><br />Curt:<br />I couldn't disagree more. Art and music have the unique (dare I say<br />"sacred") capacity to bypass the brain/mind and speak viscerally and<br />non-textually to the core of us (spirit). If you don't get this (and few<br />Marxist-influenced critics do), then you won't get art that does. Art is<br />not an argument.<br /><br />I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br />On 7 Oct 2004, at 22:26, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /> ><br /> >> There's a difference between abstraction, aesthetics, and<br />vacuous <br /> >> prettiness. Critic beware. :-)<br /> ><br /> > Yes, but no one will flesh out for me why FlashFormalism isn't vacuous<br /> > prettiness. I'm eager to know. We've heard the TooMuchInformation!<br /> > explanation, but to me it rings hollow. Bueller?<br /><br />It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is descriptive<br />of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic and systemic,<br />yet chaotic for the individual. This is not an age where it's possible<br />to paint on ceilings or floors.<br /><br />An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative would<br />not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement and<br />import, a mere illustration or placebo.<br /><br />FF is realistic to the social conditions of its production. As I say,<br />don't shoot the messenger.<br /><br /> > Read more closely – I'm not trying to import newMedia into the<br /> > "pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt, I'm trying to point<br /> > out that there's NO critical discourse happening around this work,<br /><br />Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work.<br /><br /> >> Feed them "Emigre". ;-)<br /> ><br /> > They're too busy kerning ad copy for Starbucks at $100/hr to sit down<br /> > and read about the [implications/hystories/theories] of typefaces…<br /><br />Ew. :-(<br /><br /> > I think you may have just taken the Ridonculous Award from curt.<br /><br />Cool. I'll hang it next to my bowling low score certificate. ;-)<br /><br /> > Fuck cultural studies. I'm asking this group, this meeting of the<br /> > minds, what is [critical/challenging/progressive] about<br /> > FlashFormalism,<br /><br />However the examples you give and the language you use indicates<br />certain pre-existent (and commonly held) ideas about what to be<br />critical/challenging/progressive is. That is, the challenge must be one<br />we can join, rather than one directed at us, and must be renderable in<br />language.<br /><br /> > This is devastatingly depressing. There are so many discussions that<br /> > have been woven together to form newMedia,<br /><br />Discussions in the work or around the work?<br /><br /> > and now you want to pretend not to see them and start over with new<br /> > language.<br /><br />Beware of confusing the discourse around the work with the discourse in<br />the work (the discourse of the work).<br /><br /> > As if the cybernetics discussion in the earlyVideo moment isn't still<br /> > relevant.<br /><br />It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged<br />formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.<br /><br /> > As if the hypertext discussion of the earlyHypermedia moment isn't<br /> > still relevant. As if "interactivity" and "cybernetics" are unrelated,<br /> > and unrelated to what's happening now. This is one of the main reasons<br /> > I built liken into criticalartware.net; from the very beginning we<br /> > wanted to be sure that we were connecting with and expanding upon<br /> > existing discussions that were directly relevant to the discussion of<br /> > newMedia.<br /><br />Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial<br />artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing<br />gaps in the language of that discussion.<br /><br /> > Make up your own language if you like – have fun reinventing the<br /> > wheel and calling it something else. I'll keep working hard to<br /> > [continue/reexamine/revive/extend] the discussions you're so eager to<br /> > cast off.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting<br />that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the<br />unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously<br />anathema to.<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />jm Haefner <j.haefner@sbcglobal.net> replied:<br /><br />Ben,<br /><br />Are you suggesting that design is a natural talent? That critical,<br />historical, contextual discussion doesn't happen in an academic environment<br />in graphic design? That concept is not an issue in this type of curriculum?<br />This seems a bit biased or naive.<br /><br />I agree that too often schools are under funded, and I certainly don't<br />defend "processing" students using outdated software because after all, they<br />are the customer, but to blanket state that that a "designer" can not be<br />trained… Obviously, they are not going to be masters without experience,<br />but then there doesn't seem to be a demand or pay for "masters."<br /><br />As to New Media, perhaps what we should be talking about is what an ideal<br />environment might be to allow an artist to experiment and thrive -within an<br />academic setting if they choose. The conversation is there, but I don't<br />think you are listening.<br /><br />The silence that you hear is everyone wondering why you don't know -based on<br />your statements- that not EVERY Flash piece is intended to be purely -><br />pretty, and if it conveys meaning/intent/criticality and it's ALSO<br />pretty…hummm maybe that can be discussed as part of a built-in generics<br />(like word processing software that only knows X number of words)…and not<br />necessarily an insipid artist.<br /><br /> >Read more closely – I'm not trying to import newMedia into the<br /> >"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt<br /><br /> > There are so many discussions that<br /> >have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend<br /> >not to see them and start over with new language.<br /><br />Can we say …flip flop?<br /><br />I keep running into an old argument that in order art to be accepted as art<br />it needs to be engaging on some level and that it is successful if it is<br />understood. According to some who have weighed in on this topic, Abstract<br />art fails this test, but when I consider generative programs and their<br />extended explanations, I feel the same way and even consider it an abstract!<br />It's that abstractness that IS engaging. AND another one…if the concept<br />has to be explained or it¹s not understood, then it doesn¹t fit the criteria<br />as successful either. I do have a bias about that for sure…so I might not<br />be remotely interested in a work that captures other people's work,<br />generates multiple images, or creates an online "society," but you can still<br />tell me why you "like" it, and I won't shut you down.<br /><br />Jean<br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On 7 Oct 2004, at 21:53, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > That's an interesting way to look at it – I look at Impressionist<br /> > work and see a radical protest at the dawn of the machine age. If you<br /> > think their work was a joyful expression of how wonderful it was to<br /> > take the train and paint flowers, you're missing the only thing in<br /> > those paintings of interest to me.<br /><br />Yet they did paint flowers (well, fields). Without the technology of<br />the train, tube paint, and state-sponsored colour theory we would not<br />have those images. If this is the extent of it then it is problematic<br />contrasted with…<br /><br /> > What I admire about them is the furiously angry assault on the<br /> > blackened industrial wastelands their cities had become – so angry<br /> > that even their brushstrokes rebelled against being used as fully<br /> > representational marks (like they were in the assemblyLine of<br /> > quick-cash portrait painting).<br /><br />…the fact that these often politically active yet bourgeois artists<br />were urbanites during the industrial revolution and political unrest in<br />France. To look at the Impressionists as mere formalists or prettifiers<br />is indeed a mistake of chocolate box proportions.<br /><br />When chocolate boxes have LCD screens printed on them, will those<br />screens show FF?<br /><br /> >> Of the abstract expressionists, artificial mediums and<br />individualism. <br /> >> Form follows function.<br /> ><br /> > The AbExers were not formalists either.<br /><br />Absolutely. Yet they made forms. Ones that the unreflective can hang in<br />their living rooms. A Pollock or a Rothko in the flesh is a<br />breathtaking, powerful aesthetic experience. This doesn't mean that the<br />work doesn't have or effectively communicate ideas. Far from it, the<br />form allows the work to perform (fnarr) its function. And those forms,<br />and that function, were informed (fnarr) by the ideology and technology<br />of the day.<br /><br /> >> These pseudo-chaotic structures and seemingly ordered systems are<br />our <br /> >> lives rendered for us to see, the space we live in (or that is<br /> >> dictated to us). This is how it is. This is keeping it real. The<br /> >> mapping is defensible.<br /> ><br /> > That's about half of an idea, but not nearly enough to warrant the<br /> > fullScale rejection of intellectual discourse and conceptualism.<br /><br />Nonono. I'm not rejecting discourse or conceptualism. I am asking for<br />it to be generated rather than illustrated or applied.<br /><br /> > The important thing to keep in mind is that all art is conceptual,<br /> > whether you like it or not,<br /><br />I collect Art & Language monographs… :-)<br /><br /> > because it "happens" in the brain. If no one will step up to the plate<br /> > and talk about this art, it's because not very much is happening in<br /> > anyone's brain as they ingest it.<br /><br />Possibly not. And very possibly it is minor. But it may be realistic,<br />or necessary. And it is historically precedented.<br /><br /> >> It'll grow on ya. ;-)<br /> ><br /> > Hopefully some of deesMemes will grow on you too :)<br /><br />This is the best thread for ages. :-)<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 4:59 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > You're describing bad graphic design education, but not all graphic<br /> > design education is bad.<br /><br />And someone with herpes isn't always contagious. It's impossible to<br />ignore the fact that graphicDsign has exploded from a niche industry<br />into an army of pixelPushers, and equally impossible to ignore the<br />assemblyLine pedagogy that produces them.<br /><br /> > Last time I checked, New media art was not in danger of being hijacked<br /> > by graphic designers. If anything the scene could use a bit more<br /> > craft.<br /><br />Without railing on anyone in particular, all that's needed is to take a<br />quick stroll over to the artBase. While there's a lot of great work in<br />there, a lot of it is graphic design with an artist's statement. Sadly,<br />a lot of the statements could be interchangeable. PersonX is "dealing<br />with a sense of place" whereas PersonY is "addressing the body" yet<br />both works are clicky color boxes in Flash.<br /><br /> > curt:<br /> > I'm not advocating design for desisgn's sake. You seemed to be<br /> > dismissing Casey's work as FlashFormalism. I was pointing out that<br /> > it's not. Are you agreeing with me?<br /><br />Huh? When was I dismissing Casey's work?<br /><br /> > In art history class those are the artists we discuss. But on<br /> > contemporary art bulletin boards we may discuss all sorts of<br /> > off-the-radar contemporaries making all sorts of art for all sorts of<br /> > reasons, many of whom will never be remembered, nor do they care to be<br /> > remembered, nor are they making art in hopes of being remembered.<br /> > Such are the joys of a contemporary art scene.<br /><br />Okay. Back to FlashArtisans.<br /><br /> > you miss my point. I'm not saying they weren't important in their<br /> > time. I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with<br /> > your assertion that all good art is about ideas.<br /><br />Whether or not they agree, their art is intellectually engaging,<br />whereas FlashFormalism is (to me) not. Regardless of the artists' spin<br />on their work, it can all be situated in an intellectual debate of<br />their time. I'm waiting to see if FlashFormalism can say the same<br />thing.<br /><br /> > I mention the above pieces particularly because they are *not* purely<br /> > abstract. I'm illustrating the fact that new media can successfully<br /> > combine elements of visual abstraction with concept. It's not an<br /> > either/or. Evidently we agree here.<br /><br />Not really – none of those pieces utilize visual abstraction. Every<br />pixel in the first two pieces is procedural and representative,<br />actually. What we agree on is that abstraction isn't incompatible with<br />concept. What we don't agree on is the idea that interesting art can be<br />antiConcept.<br /><br /> > not in a stric art brut sense. That would be impossible. But they<br /> > are outsiders to the net art scene.<br /><br />Wow. Okay. It's a good thing you're there to discover them and allow<br />their pathetic voices to be heard, then! I wonder what fresh insights<br />they'll have from the outside!<br /><br /> > the people on this list respond to in-depth critical analysis of most<br /> > any piece of new media artwork with inordinate silence. it's the<br /> > nature of the list.<br /><br />Sounds like a cool community, glad I joined. Anyone want a change?<br /><br /> > A pox on your shocking, challenging, intellectually stimulating<br /> > critera, Ben Syverson! There are more things in heaven and earth than<br /> > are dreamt of in your philosophy.<br /><br />You're right. That's what this list is for, right? No one here is<br />interested in the art world, right? Let's all sit around not discussing<br />work, since it should be exempt from criticality.<br /><br /> > I couldn't disagree more. Art and music have the unique (dare I say<br /> > "sacred") capacity to bypass the brain/mind and speak viscerally and<br /> > non-textually to the core of us (spirit). If you don't get this (and<br /> > few Marxist-influenced critics do), then you won't get art that does.<br /> > Art is not an argument.<br /><br />What's all this Marxist bullShizer you keep pulling? No one here is<br />talking about art as production – I'm just trying to poke the corpse<br />of Rhizome to see if it's dead or just sleeping.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> replied:<br /><br /> > I totally agree – Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially<br /> > radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and<br /> > Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower"<br /> > class.<br /><br />I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation<br />appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time said<br />about his art? We seem to all agree that Impressionism was an extremely<br />important and good movement in various aspects. Did their contemporaries<br />think so? Didn't their critics say things equivalent to, "…and<br />consider their intellectual weight to be on a par with painted pottery."<br />Anyway, you missed my point entirely (perhaps on purpose?). Do you truly<br />think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts, addressing Science and<br />Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work important today?<br /><br /> > Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point.<br /><br />It was? Hmm… I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just<br />like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image. Hey! Wait a<br />second. You're right! Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea,<br />just like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image! (my point<br />being that your interpretation of what constitutes a method and what<br />constitutes an idea seems to change when it's convenient to your argument)<br /><br />Back to the bit about Seurat and Impressionists. Your criticism of new<br />media sounds a lot like the criticism given to the Impressionists during<br />their time. I get the feeling that you haven't actually *examined* the<br />work you're criticising. You may have glanced at a few projects but I<br />don't think you get it, in the same way that the critics of the<br />mid-nineteenth century didn't bother to *examine* the work of the<br />Impressionists and therefore, didn't get it.<br /><br />ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a long<br />time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes, this<br />is a huge success but your arguments are falling all over themselves:<br /> > And someone with herpes isn't always contagious.<br />What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh… all graphic design education<br />*is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious?<br /><br />Pall<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /><br /> > It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is descriptive<br /> > of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic and systemic,<br /> > yet chaotic for the individual.<br /><br />Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese<br />proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary<br />experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling<br />or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month<br />[live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to<br />understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of<br />it.<br /><br /> > This is not an age where it's possible to paint on ceilings or<br />floors.<br /><br />???<br /><br /> > An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative would<br /> > not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement and<br /> > import, a mere illustration or placebo.<br /><br />What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything,<br />because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything? Say that to<br />Michael Moore's face. Say it to Picasso. Say it to any artist who has<br />seen the impact their work has had. I'd say with the net, the<br />possibilities for critical engagement and import are multiplied – look<br />at how much of an impact bloggers are having in this election. Sure,<br />that's a political example, but it shows you the power of your chosen<br />medium, no matter how willing you are to make excuses for not engaging<br />it.<br /><br /> > Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work.<br /><br />Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something?<br />Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion<br />that involves me.<br /><br /> > However the examples you give and the language you use indicates<br /> > certain pre-existent (and commonly held) ideas about what to be<br /> > critical/challenging/progressive is. That is, the challenge must be<br /> > one we can join, rather than one directed at us, and must be<br /> > renderable in language.<br /><br />No – forget language. If you can intrigue me without language, go for<br />it. FlashFormalism does not intrigue me. You seem to think that it<br />doesn't matter. "Not intrigued? Not challenged? Who cares! Art has many<br />purposes! Plus, there's a hidden discourse in the work you can't see!<br />No, don't worry about what that discourse is!" I'm being an ass, but<br />seriously: what is the point of this list if not to move the discussion<br />of newMedia forward? And if follows, that if that is indeed the purpose<br />of the list, how can we do that if we can't engage with the work? And<br />if we can't engage with the work, is it because we don't understand it,<br />or that it isn't of interest? And how can we even begin to understand<br />the work if some of us are unwilling to look at it critically?<br /><br /> > Beware of confusing the discourse around the work with the discourse<br /> > in the work (the discourse of the work).<br /><br />Sure, art is intimately intertwined with the discussion surrounding it.<br />In fact, artWorks [can/do] further this discussion, just as the<br />discussion bears the fruit of artWorks. It's a living system. The<br />problem comes when the discussion stops moving. Then the artWork has no<br />lifeSupport.<br /><br /> > It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged<br /> > formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.<br /><br />The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever, artists<br />had access to the tools of television production. In an already radical<br />time, video became a weaponLike tool for shortCircuiting expectations.<br />The very idea of seeing alternative media on a television screen was<br />challenging, and spawned a vigorous intellectual debate. Most of the<br />work was not formalist, although some of it indeed was. The formalist<br />work of the time tended to be steeped in the ideas of<br />consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood in Expanded Cinema<br />and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in various texts and<br />lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist work of that<br />hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's also important<br />to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf tools for<br />abstractVisual creation – there was no equivalent to Flash. So artists<br />(like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown,<br />paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build their<br />own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic tool was<br />totally different.<br /><br />This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable transparent<br />cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash plug-ins. If<br />you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the hyperthread of<br />cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply show me<br />satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd love to<br />see that.<br /><br /> > Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial<br /> > artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing<br /> > gaps in the language of that discussion.<br /><br />The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep<br />the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and<br />disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!)<br /><br /> > I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting<br /> > that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the<br /> > unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously<br /> > anathema to.<br /><br />What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not<br />critical discourse, which is unreflective.<br /><br />- ben<br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br />very interesting, if seemingly-not-getting-anywhere, discussion. is<br />there any other kind? ;)<br />in terms of the FF aesthetic that's being bandied about, i was just<br />thinking that it's very strange to suggest that it has nothing to<br />offer. Certainly it represents some aspect of a larger social imaginary<br />that can be mined critically for all kinds of things in terms of the<br />politics of aesthetics and desire. i may not find it very interesting<br />beyond design as work, but the interesting project for a critic, and<br />what i look for in critical writing, is to discuss and question what<br />aesthetic choices are about in a larger sense. A couple of years ago,<br />there was an article on the flash aesthetic<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=226">http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=226</a> The work discussed isn't<br />that interesting for me, but the implications found in it (how it<br />relates, connects, reflects to larger phenomena) is. This may be the<br />kind of criticism that many here despise (seems like i got into this<br />with curt at some point? maybe not.), but it's what i'm interested in<br />and find important. Reality TV is the most vapid and boring thing i've<br />ever seen, and i like televised bowling, but i've read some pretty<br />interesting criticism of it that i feel i learned something beyond the<br />shows from. same thing with blogs.<br />the FF aesthetic has also had a huge impact on the larger field of<br />aesthetics, from painting to advertising.<br />just a couple of thoughts…<br />ryan<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br /> > Hummm even art for storage seems to presume someone will take a look<br /> > at it -don't you think.<br /><br />a friend recently told me that the painter Kevin Appel said that the<br />more a work of art is handled, the more it's value increases.<br />i recently helped deinstalled a huge cardboard and scrap wood sculpture<br />by Hew Locke that someone had purchased for, well, a lot. it has spent<br />way more time in storage than in exhibition. And the collectors are<br />paying a fortune to house cardboard in a climate controlled archival<br />storage facility!<br />on the other hand, my partner gets paid less to take care of other<br />artists children that art movers get paid to move their art.<br />don't know what this means to the conversation. anecdotal trivia.<br />ryan<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote:<br /><br /> > Are you suggesting that design is a natural talent?<br /><br />Uhh, no.<br /><br /> > That critical, historical, contextual discussion doesn't happen in an<br /> > academic environment in graphic design? That concept is not an issue<br /> > in this type of curriculum? This seems a bit biased or naive.<br /><br />I'm biased by experience – they don't happen enough. If you have any<br />doubts, walk into a graphic design firm and ask the interns who they're<br />reading or why they want to design.<br /><br /> > Obviously, they are not going to be masters without experience, but<br /> > then there doesn't seem to be a demand or pay for "masters."<br /><br />Mastery is an illusion.<br /><br /> > The conversation is there, but I don't think you are listening.<br /><br />Oh? <crickets chirping> There's plenty of critical discourse about<br />newMedia happening, it's just not taking place on this list. It should.<br /><br /> > The silence that you hear is everyone wondering why you don't know<br /> > -based on your statements- that not EVERY Flash piece is intended to<br /> > be purely -> pretty, and if it conveys meaning/intent/criticality and<br /> > it's ALSO pretty…hummm maybe that can be discussed as part of a<br /> > built-in generics (like word processing software that only knows X<br /> > number of words)…and not necessarily an insipid artist.<br /><br />I have no issue with pretty work that has brains. My issue is with the<br />glut of pretty work with nothing to say. Which is not to say that I<br />don't like it – some of it is nice as a diversion, much like reading<br />Wallpaper, ArtForum, or watching trashTV. I just think it's weird how<br />little it's challenged, particularly when I see a lot of work being<br />posted that's critical in other ways….<br /><br /> > >Read more closely – I'm not trying to import newMedia into the<br /> > >"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt<br /> ><br /> > ++++<br /> ><br /> > > There are so many discussions that<br /> > >have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to<br />pretend<br /> > >not to see them and start over with new language.<br /> > <br /> > Can we say …flip flop?<br /><br />HA! Speaking of importing language from suspect sources, you just did a<br />File>Import on the Republican propaganda machine… If you would, as I<br />mentioned, read more closely, you'll see I have no interest in adhering<br />to the conventional critical models (models being ways of understanding<br />hystory), but rather would like to connect newMedia to the many<br />hystorical superStrings from which it is woven. Some of these myriad<br />parallel hystories are not commonly [recognized by/incorporated into]<br />the contempArt system && narrative. What I'm suggesting is that we<br />recognize these threads && understand their discussions, as they are<br />deeply influential && formative to the current context of newMedia.<br /><br /> > I keep running into an old argument that in order art to be accepted<br /> > as art it needs to be engaging on some level and that it is successful<br /> > if it is understood.<br /><br />You can never "understand" anyone or anything – it's such a final<br />word. You can only hope to spark debate, open discussion, shock<br />someone, confuse someone, delight someone.<br /><br /> > It's that abstractness that IS engaging.<br /><br />Really? If I can ask in my most sincere and un-confrontational voice,<br />what exactly is it about it that is engaging? Is it a visceral thing?<br />What are the feelings you go through as you view it? Is it some kind of<br />rush, or maybe a soothing calm? I'm most curious to know.<br /><br /> > AND another one…if the concept has to be explained or it¹s not<br /> > understood, then it doesn¹t fit the criteria as successful either.<br /><br />Nah, there's too much work out there that leans on a concept too<br />heavily to the detriment of the work. You run into problems when you<br />start blaming your audience for not "understanding" your work. However,<br />if your audience flat-out doesn't care about your work….<br /><br /> > I do have a bias about that for sure…so I might not be remotely<br /> > interested in a work that captures other people's work, generates<br /> > multiple images, or creates an online "society," but you can still<br /> > tell me why you "like" it, and I won't shut you down.<br /><br />I'm not shutting anyone down – people just seem to be pretty irked by<br />my questions about why there isn't more critical discussion about<br />FlashFormalism here. I'm all for MORE discussion.<br /><br /> > OH, and want your Web site redesigned?<br /><br />Nah, I like the suspense. Besides, I've got a few sites I have to get<br />operational first. I'll be sure to post the links!<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br />On Oct 7, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:<br /><br /> > I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation<br /> > appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time<br /> > said about his art?<br /><br />Who cares what the contemporary art world circa Seurat said about his<br />work? I think it's pretty clear that he himself had these ideas in<br />mind, and it's very difficult to look at his work today and not see<br />this sociallyRadical perspective.<br /><br /> > Do you truly think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts,<br /> > addressing Science and Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work<br /> > important today?<br /><br />I'm sure if you look at Seurat's contemporaries, they understood his<br />work as addressing science, and clearly his work became important<br />because it was both pretty and very different. Maybe the audiences of<br />the day didn't connect the visual style to the politics of the work<br />(and maybe Seurat didn't, at least consciously – I'm not Seurat<br />scholar), but there is an obvious connexion…<br /><br />Today is another issue. I'm confident that audiences today like<br />Impressionism because it's "pretty." I can guarantee that audiences in<br />the early impressionist era thought the work was anything but pretty.<br /><br /> >> Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point.<br /> >><br /> > It was? Hmm… I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just<br /> > like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image.<br /><br />It was a technical trick that sent shock waves through the art world<br />and utterly astonished viewers. If you can say the same thing for<br />FlashFormalism with a straight face, then we'll begin a debate about<br />the relative impact they had. I'm not saying method can't be powerful<br />– I'm saying that the method in FlashFormalism isn't.<br /><br /> > You may have glanced at a few projects but I don't think you get it,<br /> > in the same way that the critics of the mid-nineteenth century didn't<br /> > bother to *examine* the work of the Impressionists and therefore,<br /> > didn't get it.<br /><br />Maybe you're right! Maybe between the 11 years I've been browsing the<br />web, the 10 years that I've been creating on it and the years I spent<br />studying newMedia at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I just<br />haven't managed to see enough newMedia projects to even talk about it!<br />Man, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. This whole "looking at work<br />before critiquing it" thing is new to me.<br /><br />I've seen gigs of this bullShizer! I was bored with FlashFormalism in<br />1999, and I'm bored with it now – in five years, it has not progressed<br />in any discernible way. There's the smell of death wafting over it, and<br />the inability for its community to accept criticism is the rigor<br />mortis.<br /> > ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a<br /> > long time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes,<br /> > this is a huge success<br /><br />Hooray!<br /><br /> >> And someone with herpes isn't always contagious.<br /> > What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh… all graphic design education<br /> > *is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious?<br /><br />I'm trying to say that terrible pedagogy and methodology has infected<br />graphicDsign much like Herpes Simplex Virus. It is possible to have<br />intercourse with the field of graphicDsign and not become infected, but<br />your risk is much greater without criticalProtection, particularly<br />during a formalistOutbreak. And much like Herpes, the corruption of<br />graphicDsign is spreading at epidemical rates.<br /><br />What, that analogy wasn't clear? :)<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />jm Haefner <j.haefner@sbcglobal.net> replied:<br />Ben,<br /><br />OK…how about if you help define what you mean by FlashFormalism? If we are<br />talking about how Flash defines the use of color, form etc, I don¹t know how<br />far that discussion will go without sounding pedantic ­unless we talk about<br />the tool producing a generic look, its limitations, etc (but there are other<br />lists that do that too).<br /><br />Unfortunately, when you talk about Web design for economy, there is little<br />choice when it comes to subject or content, and metaphor is more or less<br />trite (lashings anyone?). Therefore, I'm more likely to approach a<br />discussion of Flash Web design from utilitarian point of view.<br /><br />Perhaps a discussion of the work in the ArtBase is in order, as I assume<br />people are putting their work up to be critiqued, if not, then archived?<br /><br />Perhaps refreshing the purpose of ArtBase seems reasonable, because the<br />selection criteria pretty much define what you seem to be talking about ­but<br />the work does not always seem to hold up to that standard in my view (also<br />what you intimate). When these works are selected, there are no reviews by<br />those selecting the work, only an artist statement and bio produced by the<br />artist. It then stands to reason, that work selected might not be all the<br />selection criteria say it is.<br /><br />I suppose you are near correct in that there seem to be few interns reading<br />­tho some time back, I caught one of mine (yup, on the job) reading The Age<br />of Spiritual Machines.<br />Jean<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Hi Ben,<br /><br />It seems like at this point you're grapsing at things about which to be<br />contrary. I think you're best tactic for sparking dialogue is to get into<br />the work piece by piece, preferably with as little hyperbole as possible.<br />The works in ArtBase are easy targets. Not to dis the ArtBase, but it seeks<br />to be fairly inclusive, and nobody is really looking to it as the be all end<br />all archive of contemporary new media art. Let's look at the three pieces I<br />mentioned, since each is more or less canonized (as much as any net.art work<br />can be at this stage).<br /><br />You say that the Shape of Song (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html">http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html</a> ) and textarc (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.textarc.org/">http://www.textarc.org/</a> ) don't utilize visual abstraction, that every pixel<br />is procedural and representational. Perhaps from a technical coding<br />perspective. But data visualization is inherently abstraction. The artist<br />is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in the first piece and<br />from sound to shapeForm in the second). The artists could have abstracted<br />the data any number of ways, but they chose to abstract it in very specific<br />ways, not just to achieve accurate representation, but to achieve an<br />abstract, aesthetic effect. These pieces are examples of abstract<br />visualization working in tandem with meaningful data mapping. The pieces<br />work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed, neither are<br />terribly useful), but also because they look interesting. Not SOLELY<br />because they look interesting, but they do look interesting and<br />intentionally so. Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is<br />intrinsically related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely<br />arbitrarily driven by it. Each coder's "hand/eye/craft/aesthetic intent" is<br />imposed on the way the their output looks (in the case of Shape of Song) and<br />moves/reacts (in the case of TextArc). This is part of the art.<br /><br />Regarding carnivore ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore">http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore</a> ) the genius of the<br />piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to "artisans"<br />(if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual representation. Galloway<br />tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The political concept<br />(surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a shoe-in for gallery-ization,<br />but there's nothing terribly sexy about that aspect of it to me. The<br />codidng took some doing, but it was basically just a reappropriation of<br />government code already written. The real genius of the piece is twofold:<br />1. It takes brilliant advantage of the online community. It's true net art,<br />not just because it runs on the network (again, an obligatory requirement),<br />but because it optimizes the collaborative aspects of the networked<br />community in its ongoing production.<br />2. In so clearly bifurcating the concept (backend) and the visual aesthetics<br />(front end) it uses its literal, technical form as a meta-phor to foreground<br />the split in art criticism between concept and visual aesthetics (the same<br />split we've been dancing around for the last two days in these posts). The<br />project then goes on to unite these two aspects into a single work, thus<br />showing that the two aren't really diametrically opposed, but that they<br />drive and complement each other and are "apiece."<br /><br />It's easy to look at Carnivore and get excited about the politcal aspects<br />of surveilance. But that's the easy surface read of the project. You said<br />earlier that RSG's part in the piece was concepetual. A facile critique.<br />Their genius in the piece was to orchesetrate an outsourcing of the generic<br />conceptual to the idiosynchratic abstract. And Alex's marketing genius in<br />the whole project was to make it "about surveilance," when it's really not<br />about surveilance at all (it only tracks traffic on a local network that has<br />given it permission to do so). But the surveilance angle got it into the<br />galleries. [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/</a> ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada is<br />the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly dissed.]<br />Because it's not an either/or.<br /><br /> curt:<br /> > you miss my point. I'm not saying [dubuffet, magritte, beuys] weren't<br />important in their <br /> > time. I'm saying they are still important now and they disagree with<br /> > your assertion that all good art is about ideas.<br /><br />ben:<br />Whether or not they agree, their art is intellectually engaging,<br />whereas FlashFormalism is (to me) not. Regardless of the artists' spin<br />on their work, it can all be situated in an intellectual debate of<br />their time. I'm waiting to see if FlashFormalism can say the same<br />thing. <br /><br />curt:<br />argh! you're not hearing me. I'm not talking about whether you personally<br />like FlashFormalism. I'm not talking about whether you personally like the<br />work of these artists. You say, "whether or not they agree." They<br />categorically disagree, and that's my point. You may assimilate them into<br />your current historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but<br />if they were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly. They were working<br />from a perspective that art is beyond idea. Their words and their work<br />disagree with your stated position.<br />ben:<br />You're right. That's what this list is for, right? No one here is<br />interested in the art world, right? Let's all sit around not discussing<br />work, since it should be exempt from criticality.<br /><br />Brian Eno:<br />Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.<br /><br />curt:<br />OK. You've sufficiently goaded me to critically discuss<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net">http://www.complexification.net</a> a bit (I've got some free time). But the<br />piece I'll reference is admittedly not a "critic friendly" piece. That<br />doesn't mean it's not a great piece. cf:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261">http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261</a> (a summary of my position regarding<br />contemporary new media criticism).<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/index.php">http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/index.php</a><br /><br />It owes an intentional debt to Pollock not only in its palette but in its<br />application and process. Pollock was not a "chance operations" artist, but<br />was very deliberate in his execution. His process was an admixture of chaos<br />and craft, and part of that craft lay in how much chaos to allow into the<br />work, when to allow it in, and how to allow it in. Similarly, Tarbell is<br />not using Flash (as t. whid rightly observes), but Processing which compiles<br />into Java, and then he's going behind and hand-tweaking the compiled java.<br />The piece is generative, but not without Tarbell's particular, intentional<br />visaul aesthetic, not just in the final output, but in the real-time<br />"playing out" of the piece. Whereas Pollock's "hand" in real-time painting<br />led to the production of a static final painting, Tarbell removes this<br />process one step further. Tarbell's "hand" in real-time coding leads to the<br />software's "hand" in real-time "painting," which in turn leads to the output<br />of the static piece. In Pollock's case, the final piece shows evidence of<br />Pollock's energetic "performance," that is, his painting of the piece. In<br />Tarbell's case, the performance (the software's "drawing" of the art) *is*<br />the actual piece. This generative "playing out" in turn shows evindence of<br />Tarbell's coding "performance" which occurs off stage, but which is<br />nevertheless observable by viewing the intentionally open source code.<br /><br />So it ain't just FlashFormalism, Ben. It's "speaking" about art history;<br />about new media's relation to art history; about the nature of<br />time-shiftedness and instruction giving; about the balance between chaos and<br />control; about the continuum of performance, meta-performance (literally<br />"script writing"), and object; about the relationship between process and<br />visual aesthetics; about the relationship between code, hand, line, and<br />dance; about the ability of software-based media to evince an idiosynchratic<br />personal style. Plus it looks so danged pretty. And the beauty of it<br />(literally) is, you don't have to grok the above insights to get something<br />out of the piece.<br /><br />And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning job<br />at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to look for<br />something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and immediately<br />dialogue-able. (When intellectual stimulation leads to mental masturbation,<br />call us. Our trained professionals are standing by.) If it's pretty and<br />subtle and anti-sublime, it must not be saying anything. And if it happens<br />to show some superficial resemblance to a screen saver, Egad! Out with the<br />bathwater it goes.<br />ben:<br />What's all this Marxist bullShizer you keep pulling? No one here is<br />talking about art as production.<br /><br />curt:<br />No, but you're implicitly approaching art as material and humans as<br />material. There's seems to be little room for the spiritual in the<br />assumptions of your critical perspective. But then spirit went out with<br />Romanticism, so you're off the hook there.<br /><br />It's so elegant. So intelligent.<br /><br />respectfully,<br />curt<br /> <br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 7:15 PM, ryan griffis wrote:<br /><br /> > very interesting, if seemingly-not-getting-anywhere, discussion. is<br /> > there any other kind? ;)<br /><br />Heh, indeed. I'm quickly reaching a point where I've said what I want<br />to say, and RAW can do with it what it will. I'm not really cut out for<br />criticism. Makes me anxious to get back to work. :) It's been<br />enjoyable, though!<br /><br /> > in terms of the FF aesthetic that's being bandied about, i was just<br /> > thinking that it's very strange to suggest that it has nothing to<br /> > offer. Certainly it represents some aspect of a larger social<br /> > imaginary that can be mined critically for all kinds of things in<br /> > terms of the politics of aesthetics and desire.<br /><br />That's a vGood point – I have been taking the approach of critiquing<br />the work itself, but perhaps a more productive approach would be to<br />critique the broader cultural phenomenon.<br /><br /> > This may be the kind of criticism that many here despise (seems like i<br /> > got into this with curt at some point? maybe not.), but it's what i'm<br /> > interested in and find important.<br /><br />If we do get into critiquing the broader phenomenon, this will get<br />messy, because as I mentioned before, it seems to be a massive ThumbsUp<br />to the statusQuo, and as you mention, engages the politics of desire –<br />and more specifically in my opinion, demonstrates a slavish<br />entrancement with the sumptuousness of consumption and eCommerce. To my<br />eyes, it reads as anything but critical to these forces and utterly<br />complicit in the suffering they inflict.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> added:<br /><br />On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote:<br /><br /> > I don¹t know how far that discussion will go without sounding pedantic<br /> > ­unless we talk about the tool producing a generic look, its<br /> > limitations, etc (but there are other lists that do that too).<br /><br />The tools you use to produce a work are inseparable from the work; the<br />use of Flash as a platform for activity has inherent political and<br />aesthetic constraints and attachments.<br /><br /> > Perhaps a discussion of the work in the ArtBase is in order, as I<br /> > assume people are putting their work up to be critiqued, if not, then<br /> > archived?<br /><br />Yes indeed – I simply didn't want to get into the position of "calling<br />out" specific pieces of art, but I'm glad that curt has brought up a<br />few for me to examine. I'll take a look at them in an email response to<br />his most recent post.<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Eric Dymond <e.dymond@sympatico.ca> replied:<br /><br />Apparently video game sales have stalled at around 18-20~ billion dollars.<br />Thats Gross sales.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-09-01-videogame-sal">http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-09-01-videogame-sal</a><br />es_x.htm<br />According to film sources, total movie revenues are in excess of 200 billion<br />dollars.(these are all global sales figures)<br />So the comparison, which is based on real Gross sales figures puts to lie<br />the Game Industries myth.<br />Still though, Games are a large part of the digital economy.<br />Note that ebays net revenue(not gross) was 2.1 billion in 2003.<br /><br />+ + +<br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br />Nor are the two separate…<br />Look at how the industries (are they really distinct?) cross in many<br />blockbusters (which we seem to be talking about blockbusters, not<br />independent film/video as curt pointed out) - the Matrix, Italian Job,<br />etc. as you can tell "i don't play video games or i'd be able to name<br />more. ;)<br />ryan<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> replied:<br /><br /> >Without railing on anyone in particular, all that's needed is to<br /> >take a quick stroll over to the artBase. While there's a lot of<br /> >great work in there, a lot of it is graphic design with an artist's<br /> >statement. Sadly, a lot of the statements could be interchangeable.<br /> >PersonX is "dealing with a sense of place" whereas PersonY is<br /> >"addressing the body" yet both works are clicky color boxes in Flash.<br /><br />this seems to describe contemporary art (and most of the web art<br />scene). it relies on more rhetoric than being aesthetically<br />interesting. and rhetoric (as you point out) that is easily<br />interchangeable. whether it is Flash or ASCII art, the result for<br />the viewer is the same. either the viewer brings to the<br />meaninglessness object a meaning, or the viewer just sees no meaning<br />in the object and stops there. some folks will enjoy the rhetoric,<br />critical analysis, some will lose interest. so why do they need to<br />by ANY object? Is there a more essential element than rhetoric?<br /><br />twhid made the best distinction ever, between ART and screen savers.<br />there is ART that may have an element of concept, idea, etc. and<br />then, maybe something like the statue of david, really just an old<br />version of a screen saver. a visual veg-out promoter. stuff that<br />was once called "art" but now the word means something else, but we<br />keep using the word and the concept as though they apply. often with<br />an air of pretentiousness, and rarely admitting it when pressed<br />(switching definitions as needed), we really can and do distinguish<br />between eye candy and conceptual representation!<br /><br />so what exactly makes either preferred? why does the art object that<br />is not a screen saver exist? and visa versa. not that i think<br />either shouldn't, this is not a judgement of them, but IS a<br />fundamental question why value either?<br /><br />– <br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />PLASMA STUDII<br />art non-profit<br />stages * galleries * the web<br />New York, USA<br /><br />(on-line press kit)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://plasmastudii.org">http://plasmastudii.org</a><br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br /> On 8 Oct 2004, at 00:56, bensyverson wrote:<br /><br /> > On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br /> ><br /> >> It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is<br /> >> descriptive of contemporary experience. That experience is<br />aesthetic <br /> >> and systemic, yet chaotic for the individual.<br /> ><br /> > Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese<br /> > proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary<br /> > experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling<br /> > or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month<br /> > [live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to<br /> > understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of<br /> > it.<br /><br />I've never been anywhere near Manhattan. Politically, socially,<br />artefactually, this is an age where aesthetics have trumped ethics and<br />how.<br /><br /> >> An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative<br /> >> would not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical<br />engagement <br /> >> and import, a mere illustration or placebo.<br /> ><br /> > What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything,<br /> > because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything?<br /><br />No. Say it in a way that will have an effect, not in a way that the<br />in-crowd can stroke their chins to.<br /><br /> > I'd say with the net, the possibilities for critical engagement and<br /> > import are multiplied – look at how much of an impact bloggers are<br /> > having in this election. Sure, that's a political example, but it<br /> > shows you the power of your chosen medium, no matter how willing you<br /> > are to make excuses for not engaging it.<br /><br />Blogs are a good example.<br /><br /> >> Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the<br />work.<br /> ><br /> > Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something?<br /> > Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion<br /> > that involves me.<br /><br />Try holding it upside down. :-)<br /><br /> > And how can we even begin to understand the work if some of us are<br /> > unwilling to look at it critically?<br /><br />How can we even begin to understand the work if some of us won't look<br />at our critical ideas critically?<br /><br /> >> It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially<br />engaged <br /> >> formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.<br /> ><br /> > The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever,<br /> > artists had access to the tools of television production.<br /><br />This sounds an awful lot like playing with technology. ;-)<br /><br /> > In an already radical time, video became a weaponLike tool for<br /> > shortCircuiting expectations. The very idea of seeing alternative<br /> > media on a television screen was challenging, and spawned a vigorous<br /> > intellectual debate. Most of the work was not formalist, although some<br /> > of it indeed was. The formalist work of the time tended to be steeped<br /> > in the ideas of consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood<br /> > in Expanded Cinema and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in<br /> > various texts and lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist<br /> > work of that hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's<br /> > also important to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf<br /> > tools for abstractVisual creation – there was no equivalent to Flash.<br /> > So artists (like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown,<br /> > paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build<br /> > their own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic<br /> > tool was totally different.<br /><br />They didn't build their own video cameras or recorders though. The<br />blurry and|or pixellated limitations of the available base technology<br />became associated with the work made using it. Kinda like with Flash.<br /><br /> > This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable<br /> > transparent cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash<br /> > plug-ins. If you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the<br /> > hyperthread of cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply<br /> > show me satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd<br /> > love to see that.<br /><br />I'm going to write a longer piece, but I'm certainly not claiming it's<br />committed art or anything.<br /><br /> >> Which is great, but slots very easily into the<br />academic/commercial<br /> >> artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than<br />revealing <br /> >> gaps in the language of that discussion.<br /> ><br /> > The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep<br /> > the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and<br /> > disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!)<br /><br />Or to erect a roadblock. :-)<br /><br /> >> I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm<br />suggesting <br /> >> that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the<br /> >> unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is<br />obviously <br /> >> anathema to.<br /> ><br /> > What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not<br /> > critical discourse, which is unreflective.<br /><br />The messenger is now mostly lead. ;-)<br /><br />- Rob.<br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 7, 2004, at 9:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > It seems like at this point you're grapsing at things about which to<br /> > be contrary. I think you're best tactic for sparking dialogue is to<br /> > get into the work piece by piece, preferably with as little hyperbole<br /> > as possible.<br /><br />Thanks for the advice – I will follow it as best I am able 02.<br />Although after seven hours straight today of responding to<br />multiplePeeps, this may be the last word from me on this particular<br />line of discussion, for fear of repeating myself and going around in<br />circles forever. But I certainly appreciate the condescending tone;<br />I'll be sure to lather it on liberally as well.<br /><br /> > The works in ArtBase are easy targets. Not to dis the ArtBase, but<br /> > it seeks to be fairly inclusive, and nobody is really looking to it as<br /> > the be all end all archive of contemporary new media art.<br /><br />No, although that's essentially how it's framed by its creators – the<br />Rhizome.org front page used to read "Rhizome.org -> THE NEW MEDIA ART<br />RESOURCE."<br /><br />…<br /><br />T H E New Media Art Resource. The one, as in [Gnostic/Matrix]<br />mythology, as in THE one. You think they didn't consider that? That's<br />calculated. So if they're going to claim definitiveness, I will hold<br />them to it. Rhizome and the ArtBase are thus representatives of<br />newMedia as a whole, and should be approached as such.<br /><br /> > You say that the Shape of Song (<br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html">http://www.turbulence.org/Works/song/mono.html</a> ) and textarc (<br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.textarc.org/">http://www.textarc.org/</a> ) don't utilize visual abstraction, that every<br /> > pixel is procedural and representational. Perhaps from a technical<br /> > coding perspective.<br /><br />How about from a logical perspective? I define abstract as either<br />non-representational or so obscurely representational as to be<br />indistinguishable from non-representational. This is a fairly<br />controversial distinction, but I believe in it. I think squares moving<br />around the screen randomly is essentially the same as squares moving in<br />the same manner but driven by stock prices.<br /><br /> > But data visualization is inherently abstraction.<br /><br />In that case, a book is abstract art, because language is an<br />abstraction of thought (which may be an abstraction of chemistry &&<br />physics?). Where do we stop? We get into stonerDiscussionLand.<br /><br /> > The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in<br /> > the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The<br /> > artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they<br /> > chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve<br /> > accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect.<br /><br />It's an aesthetic effect all right, but it's in no way abstract. Unless<br />you're going to count sheet music as abstract as well. Of course in one<br />sense (like language) it is, but as you can see, that's not a very<br />productive avenue of discussion, is it?<br /><br /> > The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed,<br /> > neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting.<br /><br />Now who's using Marxist && scientific terminology? Who gives a fsck if<br />they're "useful" or "accurate?" That's not at all what makes them<br />interesting to me. What I find fascinating about them is the way that<br />they pose questions about navigation and representation, and attempt to<br />answer those questions. They are indeed interesting-looking – they're<br />fascinating shapes when you realize how they describe and navigate<br />concepts and relationships. If you stripped away the conceptual<br />element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that<br />they were interesting-looking.<br /><br /> > Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically<br /> > related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily<br /> > driven by it.<br /><br />Exactly! As you say, they are interesting in their way exactly because<br />of the concepts happening. If the MIDI files in Shape of Song merely<br />determined the amount to offset transparent squares, my interest<br />wouldn't hold.<br /><br /> > Each coder's "hand/eye/craft/aesthetic intent" is imposed on the way<br /> > the their output looks (in the case of Shape of Song) and moves/reacts<br /> > (in the case of TextArc). This is part of the art.<br /><br />Sure, no one doubts that nugget. I know you think I'm a negative d00d,<br />but I'm not attacking individuality…<br /><br /> > Regarding carnivore ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore">http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore</a> ) the genius of<br /> > the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to<br /> > "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual<br /> > representation.<br /><br />You say genius, I say Galloway was making a considered move to maintain<br />distance from this world of newFormalism while leveraging it to his<br />advantage. This project allowed him to use the kind of splashy<br />abstraction that gets people's attention without actually giving up his<br />Conceptualist membership card.<br /><br /> > Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The<br /> > political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a<br /> > shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about<br /> > that aspect of it to me.<br /><br />Nor to me. I find Galloway's work to have a fairly repellent tension<br />between Hipsterism, Careerism and Hackerism. The thin concepts that do<br />make their way into his work are, as you describe, unrelated to the<br />ulterior motives that drive it. But they are indeed an easy sell to<br />overEager galleries and institutions.<br /><br /> > 1. It takes brilliant advantage of the online community. It's true<br /> > net art, not just because it runs on the network (again, an obligatory<br /> > requirement), but because it optimizes the collaborative aspects of<br /> > the networked community in its ongoing production.<br /><br />I would rephrase your first sentence to read "It takes advantage of his<br />online community." Because the work was really about drawing attention<br />to Rhizome.org as "THE new media art resource," and the awesomeness<br />that is AlexGalloway. The more people who "collaborate" by contributing<br />clients, the more press and attention he receives. This work engages<br />the network on only the most superficial and rudimentary level; the net<br />simply serves as a highFashion publicRelations network to draw people<br />closer to Him.<br /><br /> > 2. In so clearly bifurcating the concept (backend) and the visual<br /> > aesthetics (front end) it uses its literal, technical form as a<br /> > meta-phor to foreground the split in art criticism between concept and<br /> > visual aesthetics (the same split we've been dancing around for the<br /> > last two days in these posts).<br /><br />It is indeed a bifurcation, stemming from the realization that he could<br />capitalize on the screensaverization of newMedia while maintaining his<br />credibility as a "serious artist." In this way, all Carnivore clients<br />become part of his work, which happens to be to his advantage, while he<br />is absolved of the specific responsibility of authorship of those<br />clients. He reaps the praise as the conceptualistMastermind behind the<br />project, and artDirectors in magazines everywhere get to print<br />prettyPictures. And it doesn't stop there….<br /><br /> > The project then goes on to unite these two aspects into a single<br /> > work, thus showing that the two aren't really diametrically opposed,<br /> > but that they drive and complement each other and are "apiece."<br /><br />Oh, everyone united in The House that Alex Built. It's touching! Truly<br />touching, and also utter fantasy. In his masterStroke, Galloway gets<br />credit for uniting conceptualism and aesthetics while actually driving<br />them further apart. By implicitly encouraging the production of work<br />that deals in [dataVisualization/dataAbstraction] (ie, Carnivore<br />clients), Galloway ensures that there will be enough prettyDataPictures<br />to draw people to Rhizome.org for some time, and leaves him plenty of<br />time to create more hipsterCareerHacks. The division created is not a<br />comment on the division, but rather a protraction of the division.<br /><br /> > It's easy to look at Carnivore and get excited about the politcal<br /> > aspects of surveilance. But that's the easy surface read of the<br /> > project. You said earlier that RSG's part in the piece was<br /> > concepetual. A facile critique.<br /><br />It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex<br />Galloway. At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and<br />shameless his carreeristNarcissism is. Galloway's work obfuscates the<br />fact that it is un-ironically about how cool he is.<br /><br /> > Their genius in the piece was to orchesetrate an outsourcing of the<br /> > generic conceptual to the idiosynchratic abstract. And Alex's<br /> > marketing genius in the whole project was to make it "about<br /> > surveilance," when it's really not about surveilance at all<br /><br />Exactly. Although one man's "marketing genius" is another's<br />"doubleSpeak careerBuilding."<br /><br /> > [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (<br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/</a> ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada<br /> > is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly<br /> > dissed.]<br /><br />You're right – I didn't spend enough time examining the Rhizome logo.<br />Let's look at it together! Hmm. I see lines. No, let's dig deeper!<br />Lines, as in linearity, as in 1-dimensionality, as in locked in a<br />to-and-fro proto-Flatland hell (AbbottStyle). Deeper still! Okay, I see<br />a hub and spoke, suggesting centrality, unification, Modernism. Deeper<br />still! Wait, they seem to be different colors, so there must be<br />multiple elements coming together in the same place! Like a city, which<br />grows rapidly before calcifying into stone. Deeper still! What's that?<br />You say these lines aren't simply random, but based on some… data?<br />What kind of data? Oh, 11 herbs and spices, eh? Well, a secret's a<br />secret – I'll take your word that the lines are based on Something!<br />What's that? You want a final analysis?<br /><br />It seems that this "Rhizome" is some sort of unified location for…<br />Modernist secretDataPictures?<br /><br />There. I've just given the logo more thought than most Rhizomers<br />probably [have/would care to]. Is there something deeper I should be<br />"getting," or am I just not appreciating it enough somehow?<br /><br /> > You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree,<br /> > and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current<br /> > historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they<br /> > were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly.<br /><br />I hate to say this, but if we start relying on the artists to interpret<br />their own work, intellectual discourse in the art community will<br />largely wither and die. Do you believe everything Warhol told you about<br />his work? Of course not, you look at the work and you draw your own<br />conclusions. The conclusion I've reached after snoring my way through<br />five or six years of FlashFormalism is that I'd like to raise a little<br />hell about why this work continues to be made.<br /><br /> > Brian Eno:<br /> > Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.<br /><br />Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, but<br />rather fullOn engagement. If you really want to withdraw from the<br />artWorld in disgust, unsubscribe and truly disEngage.<br /><br /> > cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261">http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261</a> (a summary of my position<br /> > regarding contemporary new media criticism).<br /><br />yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique<br />of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical<br />discussion.<br /><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/">http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/</a><br /> > index.php<br /> > So it ain't just FlashFormalism, Ben. It's "speaking" about art<br /> > history; about new media's relation to art history; about the nature<br /> > of time-shiftedness and instruction giving; about the balance between<br /> > chaos and control; about the continuum of performance,<br /> > meta-performance (literally "script writing"), and object; about the<br /> > relationship between process and visual aesthetics; about the<br /> > relationship between code, hand, line, and dance; about the ability of<br /> > software-based media to evince an idiosynchratic personal style. Plus<br /> > it looks so danged pretty. And the beauty of it (literally) is, you<br /> > don't have to grok the above insights to get something out of the<br /> > piece.<br /><br />This piece doesn't interest me, and to be honest, I don't really like<br />looking at it. But let's skip past that.<br /><br />To pose a question that "Plasma Studii" raised, how much of your<br />analysis is the kind of critical rhetoric you so despise, and how much<br />do you really get out of the work? I'm fairly attuned to all of the<br />fields of interest that you raise, but when I look at this piece, I can<br />only get to a few of these concepts, and only when I really push<br />myself. And afterwards I have the dirty feeling that intellectually, I<br />just squeezed blood from a stone, and I might as well have been looking<br />at a Hallmark card or a block of wood. It's like an artSchool exercise:<br />write the artist's statement for the blackVelvet dolphinPainting. Lest<br />this get into a personal quibble over what two people get from a single<br />work, let me ask you this: if, as a hypothetical viewer, I'm not moved<br />or impressed enough by a piece to give it even a few minutes of<br />thought, will you really blame me?<br /><br />Can you really point the finger at me for not "grokking" it, and accuse<br />me of intellectualSnobbery for asking why I see so many things like it?<br /><br /> > And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning<br /> > job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to<br /> > look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and<br /> > immediately dialogue-able.<br /><br />Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a<br />problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool<br />brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead…<br /><br /> > (When intellectual stimulation leads to mental masturbation, call<br /> > us. Our trained professionals are standing by.) If it's pretty and<br /> > subtle and anti-sublime, it must not be saying anything. And if it<br /> > happens to show some superficial resemblance to a screen saver, Egad!<br /> > Out with the bathwater it goes.<br /><br />Yes, because my critique is superficial and categorical. Oh wait, it's<br />not. I have no investment in overIntellectualizing anything. I'm simply<br />making a small point about the overAbundance of FlashFormalism, and<br />raising the issue of why there isn't more critical thought and<br />discourse around it. You (and others) seem to agree that more critical<br />engagement is desirable. So what, in precise terms, are we disagreeing<br />about?<br /><br />Besides, you say "masturbation" like its a dirty and shameful word, but<br />when I think about it, there is no better word to describe art!<br />* Both are immensely pleasurable (unless you have "issues" as they call<br />them)<br />* Both are frowned upon in society (except by the enlightened few) –<br />even though *everybody* does it<br />* Both have no "productive" purpose, yet, oddly, seem to stimulate<br />those in production.<br />* Both can take place in public, alone, in pairs, in groups, or with<br />lubrication (see matthewBarney)<br />* Both can be either invigoratingly expressive and sensual, or<br />depressingly uninspired.<br />* Both are necessary and fascinating<br />* It's always weird when someone tries to teach you how to do either.<br /><br />All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)<br /><br /> > No, but you're implicitly approaching art as material and humans as<br /> > material.<br /><br />Oh. Really? …<br /><br />Nah…<br /><br /> > There's seems to be little room for the spiritual in the assumptions<br /> > of your critical perspective. But then spirit went out with<br /> > Romanticism, so you're off the hook there.<br /><br />I don't like the word "spirit," just as I don't like the word "soul,"<br />as I think they're overUsed and at this point, bereft of the power that<br />their meaning once held. I don't adhere to any specific conventional<br />spirituality, but I place my own spirituality somewhere between Zen<br />Buddhism and [Superstring Theory/M-Theory]. Not that it has any<br />relevance to this discussion; if I am ever spiritually moved by a piece<br />of Flash art, you will be the very first to know.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> replied:<br /><br />On Friday, October 08, 2004, at 10:50AM, bensyverson<br /><rhizome@bensyverson.com> wrote:<br /><br /> >It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex<br /> >Galloway. <br /><br />Now we're getting somewhere. :-) Replace "conceptual" with "aesthetic" and<br />"surveillance" with "brown". We'll have to change Alex's name as well I<br />suppose, but you get the idea.<br /><br /> >At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and<br /> >shameless his carreeristNarcissism is.<br /><br />Koons' work is the most socially literate American art I've seen since I<br />don't know when. The guy Gets It, can Explain It, and has done so through<br />and in his work. Popples, the basketballs, the balloon dog, the pr0n, all<br />are conceptually steeped aesthetic nightmares to beat class culture over the<br />head with. All of which goes through and with the fact that he's a shameless<br />careerist.<br /><br /> >Do you believe everything Warhol told you about<br /> >his work? <br /><br />Yes. Particlarly the bit about other people making most of it. ;-)<br /><br /> >> Brian Eno:<br /> >> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.<br /> ><br /> >Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust,<br /><br />Is FF?<br /><br /> >yes Yes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique<br /> >of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical<br /> >discussion.<br /><br />If criticism is beyond criticism then it is surely worthless: for criticism<br />the mark of value is being an object of criticism.<br /><br /> >> And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an<br />award-winning <br /> >> job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned<br />to <br /> >> look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking,<br />and <br /> >> immediately dialogue-able.<br /> ><br /> >Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a<br /> >problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool<br /> >brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead…<br /><br />I'm afraid this has been part of my argument as well. The virtue you seek<br />does not have the virtue you seek. That is, an art that is obviously<br />critical of something else that we can all agree with the criticism of and<br />feel the virtue of criticising without ourselves being touched by that<br />criticism is not particularly critical. It is an aesthetic of criticism<br />rather than an ethic of criticism.<br /><br /> >All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)<br /><br />If this list had a .sig that'd get my vote for it. :-)<br /><br />- Rob.<br /><br />+ + +<br />Alexander Galloway <galloway@nyu.edu> replied:<br /><br />> What is "Flash formalism"?<br />><br />> Has this been described anywhere?<br /><br />lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc">http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc</a><br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> replied:<br /><br /> > > What is "Flash formalism"?<br /> > ><br /> > > Has this been described anywhere?<br /> ><br /> > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out<br /> ><br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc">http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc</a><br /><br />Yes, I've scanned that before. But it doesn't mention "Flash formalism".<br /><br />'Flash' and 'formalism' seem like an odd mix to me. Or remix, as the case<br />may be. Most of the Flash work one encounters does not seem particularly<br />'formal', so I'm curious about the way that the word is being used and what<br />work they are thinking of.<br /><br />There is quite a range to work done in Flash. Sometimes people do not<br />distinguish between work done in Flash and work in Shockwave, which is done<br />in Director (and can import SWF), and so 'Flash work' is implicitly assumed<br />to encompass Shockwave work also. And then the similarities between<br />Shockwave and Java work makes one wonder if the abstract critical category<br />of 'Flash work' includes work in Java also.<br /><br />If it is difficult to pin the term down simply in the technology it<br />references, it is harder to get much of a sense of the intended critical<br />meaning concerning artistic matters.<br /><br />When I think of 'formalism' in art, the term 'austerity' comes to mind. This<br />is typically more an approach in Shockwave and Java work rather than Flash<br />work, though it is not unknown in Flash work. And forms of 'formalism' are<br />usually associated with some sort of intellectual program which informs the<br />world view of the art that arises from the scene. 'Program' would be<br />literal, in the case of 'Flash formalism' rather than figurative? And<br />'formalism' is usually associated with a 'scene'. Whereas Flash and Director<br />and Java are used around the world, the work is not containable within a<br />scene. Also, 'formalism' generally conjures associations of work where the<br />'content' is emphasized less than the 'form'. But Flash work, at least<br />somewhat naive Flash work, of which there is lots, given that it is often a<br />popular culture tool, typically emphasizes content, not form.<br /><br />So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash<br />formalism'.<br /><br />ja<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />twhid <twhid@twhid.com> replied:<br /><br />Just because Carnivore clients *can* be nothing but blinking lights<br />responding to different network traffic it doesn't mean they have to:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/beige.jpg">http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/beige.jpg</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/policestate12.jpg">http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/policestate12.jpg</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/mtaa_carni.jpg">http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/mtaa_carni.jpg</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/networkisspeaking.jpg">http://rhizome.org/software/carnivore/networkisspeaking.jpg</a><br /><br />It's unfair to characterize Galloway's project in the way you are. He<br />created a platform and different artists responded in different ways;<br />he wasn't trying to capitalize on the "screensaverization" of new<br />media.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />Goooood Morning Ben! Shall we?…<br /><br />Ben:<br />T H E New Media Art Resource. The one, as in [Gnostic/Matrix]<br />mythology, as in THE one. You think they didn't consider that? That's<br />calculated. So if they're going to claim definitiveness, I will hold<br />them to it. Rhizome and the ArtBase are thus representatives of<br />newMedia as a whole, and should be approached as such.<br /><br />curt:<br />excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm the<br />man.<br />Ben:<br />How about from a logical perspective? I define abstract as either<br />non-representational or so obscurely representational as to be<br />indistinguishable from non-representational. This is a fairly<br />controversial distinction, but I believe in it. I think squares moving<br />around the screen randomly is essentially the same as squares moving in<br />the same manner but driven by stock prices.<br /><br />curt:<br />excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so extremely out<br />of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly controversisal<br />distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that I am the man. That's<br />THE man.<br />curt:<br />> But data visualization is inherently abstraction.<br /><br />ben:<br />In that case, a book is abstract art, because language is an<br />abstraction of thought (which may be an abstraction of chemistry &&<br />physics?). Where do we stop? We get into stonerDiscussionLand.<br /><br />curt:<br />Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze. [cf:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.larrycarlson.com">http://www.larrycarlson.com</a> for the accompanying screensaver ]<br />curt:<br />> The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in<br />> the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The<br />> artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they<br />> chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve<br />> accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect.<br /><br />ben:<br />It's an aesthetic effect all right, but it's in no way abstract. Unless<br />you're going to count sheet music as abstract as well. Of course in one<br />sense (like language) it is, but as you can see, that's not a very<br />productive avenue of discussion, is it?<br /><br />curt:<br />this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg">http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg</a> ]. if you disasgree then<br />we disagree.<br /><br />curt:<br />> The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed,<br />> neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting.<br /><br />ben:<br />Now who's using Marxist && scientific terminology? Who gives a fsck if<br />they're "useful" or "accurate?" That's not at all what makes them<br />interesting to me. <br /><br />curt:<br />yech. me either. we agree.<br /><br />ben:<br />What I find fascinating about them is the way that<br />they pose questions about navigation and representation, and attempt to<br />answer those questions. They are indeed interesting-looking – they're<br />fascinating shapes when you realize how they describe and navigate<br />concepts and relationships.<br /><br />curt:<br />me too! we agree.<br /><br />ben:<br />If you stripped away the conceptual<br />element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that<br />they were interesting-looking.<br /><br />curt:<br />not me! we disagree.<br />curt:<br />> Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically<br />> related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily<br />> driven by it.<br /><br />ben:<br />Exactly! As you say, they are interesting in their way exactly because<br />of the concepts happening. If the MIDI files in Shape of Song merely<br />determined the amount to offset transparent squares, my interest<br />wouldn't hold. <br /><br />curt:<br />nor mine! we agree.<br /><br />curt:<br />> Regarding carnivore ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore">http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore</a> ) the genius of<br />> the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to<br />> "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual<br />> representation.<br /><br />ben:<br />You say genius, I say Galloway was making a considered move to maintain<br />distance from this world of newFormalism while leveraging it to his<br />advantage. This project allowed him to use the kind of splashy<br />abstraction that gets people's attention without actually giving up his<br />Conceptualist membership card.<br /><br />curt:<br />Actually, alex is a fan of the sensual. cf:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Projects/samyninterview.html">http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Projects/samyninterview.html</a><br />curt:<br />> Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The<br />> political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a<br />> shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about<br />> that aspect of it to me.<br /><br />ben:<br />Nor to me. I find Galloway's work to have a fairly repellent tension<br />between Hipsterism, Careerism and Hackerism. The thin concepts that do<br />make their way into his work are, as you describe, unrelated to the<br />ulterior motives that drive it. But they are indeed an easy sell to<br />overEager galleries and institutions.<br /><br />curt:<br />but I'm not dissing Alex, nor would I define him as a careerrist. RSG is a<br />collective, and they are the ones credited with the work. Furthermore, Alex<br />is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival recognition with all the people who<br />wrote the modules. Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art<br />fame (an amusing notion in and of itself). If anything, alex will be<br />remembered first and foremost as a new media theorist and educator. Alex,<br />would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist?<br /><br />curt:<br />> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/</a> ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada<br />> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly<br />> dissed.]<br /><br />ben:<br />You're right – I didn't spend enough time examining the Rhizome logo.<br />Let's look at it together! Hmm. I see lines. No, let's dig deeper!<br />Lines, as in linearity, as in 1-dimensionality, as in locked in a<br />to-and-fro proto-Flatland hell (AbbottStyle). Deeper still! Okay, I see<br />a hub and spoke, suggesting centrality, unification, Modernism. Deeper<br />still! Wait, they seem to be different colors, so there must be<br />multiple elements coming together in the same place! Like a city, which<br />grows rapidly before calcifying into stone. Deeper still! What's that?<br />You say these lines aren't simply random, but based on some… data?<br />What kind of data? Oh, 11 herbs and spices, eh? Well, a secret's a<br />secret – I'll take your word that the lines are based on Something!<br />What's that? You want a final analysis?<br /><br />It seems that this "Rhizome" is some sort of unified location for…<br />Modernist secretDataPictures?<br /><br />There. I've just given the logo more thought than most Rhizomers<br />probably [have/would care to]. Is there something deeper I should be<br />"getting," or am I just not appreciating it enough somehow?<br /><br />curt:<br />You're evaluating it by the wrong criteria. It's a logo, which is a graphic<br />design element used for branding a corporation. In corporate america,<br />you're logo can't change every time you use it or you've defeated your own<br />purpose (although now you've got animated avatars like the Xingular logo<br />that do change a bit, but that's off topic). So Rhizome's logo is<br />intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to remember about it is that<br />it's not the same, which is a cool way to [de/anti/un]-brand a net art<br />resource called rhizome. So as generative art, it's not much, but as a<br />logo, it's right clever.<br /><br /><dead horse><br /><br />curt:<br />> You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree,<br />> and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current<br />> historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they<br />> were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly.<br /><br />ben:<br />I hate to say this, but if we start relying on the artists to interpret<br />their own work, intellectual discourse in the art community will<br />largely wither and die. Do you believe everything Warhol told you about<br />his work? Of course not, you look at the work and you draw your own<br />conclusions.<br /><br />curt:<br />they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with their<br />work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting their personal<br />opinions about art and life, and their opinions disagree with your opinions.<br /><br /></dead horse><br /><br />> Brian Eno: <br />> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.<br /><br />ben:<br />Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, but<br />rather fullOn engagement. If you really want to withdraw from the<br />artWorld in disgust, unsubscribe and truly disEngage.<br /><br />curt:<br />must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk, occasionally<br />dropping the cryptic science and every now and then getting into the odd<br />three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN SYVERSON? I'd like to think so!<br /><br />curt:<br />> cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261">http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261</a> (a summary of my position<br />> regarding contemporary new media criticism).<br /><br />ben:<br />yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique<br />of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical<br />discussion. <br /><br />curt:<br />what's even more curious is that I wrote that piece over two years ago on<br />THIS VERY LIST! Hmmmmmmm.<br /><br />ben:<br />> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/">http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/</a><br />> index.php <br /><br />This piece doesn't interest me, and to be honest, I don't really like<br />looking at it. But let's skip past that.<br /><br />curt:<br />twist my arm.<br /><br />ben:<br />To pose a question that "Plasma Studii" raised, how much of your<br />analysis is the kind of critical rhetoric you so despise, and how much<br />do you really get out of the work?<br /><br />curt:<br />I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. It's not my favorite job, but<br />somebody's got to do it because the trees can't speak for themselves. In my<br />most forthcoming confessional tone, I hostly derived those insights from the<br />piece itself. With other peices of lesser aesthetic merit, I may have had<br />to conjure up something to impose on them (which would have been fair game<br />according to some but critically disingenuous to me). But not with this<br />piece.<br /><br />ben:<br />I'm fairly attuned to all of the<br />fields of interest that you raise, but when I look at this piece, I can<br />only get to a few of these concepts, and only when I really push<br />myself. And afterwards I have the dirty feeling that intellectually, I<br />just squeezed blood from a stone, and I might as well have been looking<br />at a Hallmark card or a block of wood. It's like an artSchool exercise:<br />write the artist's statement for the blackVelvet dolphinPainting. Lest<br />this get into a personal quibble over what two people get from a single<br />work, let me ask you this: if, as a hypothetical viewer, I'm not moved<br />or impressed enough by a piece to give it even a few minutes of<br />thought, will you really blame me?<br /><br />curt:<br />sure I'll blame you. "Shame on you, Mr. President!" Laurie Anderson talks<br />about giving memorized concerts in French and then going out on the streets<br />of Paris with great confidence as a bi-linguist only to realize that she<br />doesn't speak a word of French. I've always liked that story. Anyay, where<br />were we?<br /><br />Ben:<br />Can you really point the finger at me for not "grokking" it, and accuse<br />me of intellectualSnobbery for asking why I see so many things like it?<br /><br />curt:<br />You're seeing things that are superficially like it and lumping them all<br />together.<br /><br />ben:<br />How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool<br />brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead…<br /><br />curt:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://playdamage.org/58.html">http://playdamage.org/58.html</a><br /><br />ben:<br />I'm simply <br />making a small point about the overAbundance of FlashFormalism, and<br />raising the issue of why there isn't more critical thought and<br />discourse around it. You (and others) seem to agree that more critical<br />engagement is desirable. So what, in precise terms, are we disagreeing<br />about?<br /><br />curt:<br />If this is your small point, I can't wait to see your large point.<br /><br />ben:<br />Besides, you say "masturbation" like its a dirty and shameful word, but<br />when I think about it, there is no better word to describe art!<br />* Both are immensely pleasurable (unless you have "issues" as they call<br />them) <br />* Both are frowned upon in society (except by the enlightened few) –<br />even though *everybody* does it<br />* Both have no "productive" purpose, yet, oddly, seem to stimulate<br />those in production.<br />* Both can take place in public, alone, in pairs, in groups, or with<br />lubrication (see matthewBarney)<br />* Both can be either invigoratingly expressive and sensual, or<br />depressingly uninspired.<br />* Both are necessary and fascinating<br />* It's always weird when someone tries to teach you how to do either.<br /><br />All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)<br /><br />woody allen:<br />Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love.<br /><br />hip hop don't stop,<br />the artist formerly known as el hombre<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> added:<br /><br />Doh! It's not my term. Let Ben defend it. I just work here.<br /><br />Calling out Flash has always seemed a bit overly simplistic to me, what with<br />action scripting and lingo and java all being languages that cause things to<br />move. The relationship between the corporate ownerships of these<br />languages/scripts and the effect that has on their artistic merits seems<br />even more tenuous.<br /><br />carry on…<br /><br /> Jim wrote:<br /> >So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash<br /> >formalism'.<br />+ + +<br /><br />Jess Loseby <jess@rssgallery.com> replied:<br /><br />in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring that<br />reactionary, presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual* snobbery<br />back in to play. Any other of his essays, books , conference, papers,<br />transcripts of his phone conversation even, but please not that *essay*<br />please no, i beg<br />nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich<br />mythology!!!<br /> > <br /> > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out<br /> > <br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc">http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc</a><br /> ><br /> <br /> o<br />/^\ rssgallery.com<br /> ][<br />+ + +<br /><br />Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> replied:<br /><br />Good point. And there are a number of video games that get turned into<br />blockbuster films, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider being the examples<br />that come to my mind most easily. I wouldn't be surprised if there are<br />some enterprising film production companies who have bought up small<br />video game companies in the hopes of locking up the film licenses in<br />the case of landing a hit video game. I remember there was a company<br />that did the same with Dark Horse Comics in the '90s, though I don't<br />remember how that worked out for them. (This was _after_ Tank Girl and<br />The Crow were released as films.)<br /><br />Now, if we only had an independent games business to complement the<br />indie film business, we'd be good to go.<br /><br /> On Oct 8, 2004, at 2:18 AM, ryan griffis wrote:<br /><br /> > Nor are the two separate…<br /> > Look at how the industries (are they really distinct?) cross in many<br /> > blockbusters (which we seem to be talking about blockbusters, not<br /> > independent film/video as curt pointed out) - the Matrix, Italian Job,<br /> > etc. as you can tell "i don't play video games or i'd be able to name<br /> > more. ;)<br /> > ryan<br /><br />Francis Hwang<br />Director of Technology<br />Rhizome.org<br />phone: 212-219-1288x202<br />AIM: francisrhizome<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Alexander Galloway <galloway@nyu.edu> replied:<br /><br />> Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist?<br /><br />i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;)<br /><br />> curt:<br />>> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (<br />>> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/</a> ) to design the carnivore logo.<br /><br />the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness.<br /><br />>> Hamada<br />>> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly<br />>> dissed.]<br /><br />the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild<br />of surface.de.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br />> curt: <br />>> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (<br />>> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/</a> ) to design the carnivore logo.<br /><br />alex:<br />the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness.<br /><br />curt:<br />Danged. I knew that. But it still proves my point that ds9rz r kewl.<br /><br />curt:<br />>> Hamada <br />>> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly<br />>> dissed.]<br /><br />alex:<br />the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild<br />of surface.de.<br /><br />curt:<br />then what of this?:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/portfolio/work/screenother/rhizome.html">http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/portfolio/work/screenother/rhizome.html</a><br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br /> > It's unfair to characterize Galloway's project in the way you are. He<br /> > created a platform and different artists responded in different ways;<br /> > he wasn't trying to capitalize on the "screensaverization" of new<br /> > media.<br /><br />i'd have to agree here - the attack on Carnivore diverted some of your<br />questions Ben. making a career is not necessarily oppositional to<br />making "critical art." if the piece doesn't represent the kind of<br />severity your looking for, it's not because Galloway is making a career<br />out of his work in the process. Sure marketing is involved, if it<br />isn't, your working your ass of at a 9-5 to support the things you<br />"really believe in." i've applied for enough teaching gigs (and<br />reappointments) to know that there's marketing involved in just getting<br />and keeping a job.<br />while i think specificity is needed in criticism, the level of<br />personalization in your critique is not exactly constructive or<br />reflexive.<br />and this isn't a defense of "careerism," which could stand a good deal<br />of critique, but it would benefit from a more systemic analysis.<br />and just a one liner on current abstraction: the reconfiguration of<br />data into abstractions is connected with a whole range of post-image<br />representation that is replacing naturalistic signs of "truth." (see<br />the visible human project, the human genome project and the use of<br />satellite/surveillance imagery).<br />ryan<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:57 AM, curt cloninger wrote:<br /><br /> > excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm<br /> > the man.<br /><br />Sounds good to me, but now you have the burden of claiming to be The<br />Man. In other words, now I'll look at you and get uncomfortable about<br />your self-aggrandizement, unsure whether I should just move on whilst<br />rolling my eyes, or if I should ask those around me whether they think<br />you are, in fact, The Man. And now you can see my relationship to<br />Rhizome.org.<br /><br /> > excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so<br /> > extremely out of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly<br /> > controversisal distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that<br /> > I am the man. That's THE man.<br /><br />Okay, looks like this is my last round on the discoursePhunCarousel…<br /><br /> > Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze.<br /> > [cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.larrycarlson.com">http://www.larrycarlson.com</a> for the accompanying screensaver ]<br /><br />Man, I didn't realize… See, I thought I was raising some fairly<br />direct and realWorld questions about the quality of discourse on RAW<br />revolving around formalism. I didn't realize this discussion was that<br />deep…<br /><br /> > this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [<br /> > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg">http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg</a> ]. if you<br /> > disasgree then we disagree.<br /><br />It's really funny – knowing what it represents, it's pretty to me.<br />However, if I hadn't ever seen Shape of Song, I wouldn't like that<br />image – it would just seem kind of 70s newModernism to me, definitely<br />not the kind of aesthetics I naturally go for.<br /><br /> > but I'm not dissing Alex<br /><br />I want to make clear that although I have some long-standing issues<br />with aGalloway's work, I am not trying to "diss" him personally. I'm<br />sure he's a rad d00d; I was just sketching a picture of why his work<br />leaves a bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br /> > RSG is a collective, and they are the ones credited with the work.<br /><br />Although in your discussion of Carnivore, it's interesting that<br />aGalloway's name is the one that you bring up. I wonder why that is…<br />Huh, and it seems like at all these galleries and festivals, aGalloway<br />always seems to be there representin'. And it's a funny coincidence<br />that in a recent article, The New York Times accidentally called<br />Carnivore "his [Galloway's] Internet-based artwork." I can find<br />articles counting aGalloway as the founding member of RSG, but it's<br />funny how you never hear about the other members – it's just<br />described as a "loose group" of artists.<br /><br />The reality is that aGalloway is the beneficiary of all of the press,<br />praise and cultural capital generated by RSG projects.<br /> > Furthermore, Alex is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival<br /> > recognition with all the people who wrote the modules.<br /><br />Yes, in the role of facilitator, spokesMan and masterMind. He shares<br />the recognition knowing full well (as a media savvy guy) that he will<br />get the much more meaningful recognition as the grandArchitect.<br /><br /> > Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art fame (an<br /> > amusing notion in and of itself).<br /><br />Oh really? How many net.art projects do you know of that have an<br />exhibition schedule, press history, press release style summary, and a<br />link to a high resolution image gallery for the press complete with a<br />boilerplate PR-style bio (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/carnivore/press_images.html">http://rhizome.org/carnivore/press_images.html</a> ), all on the MAIN page<br />of the project?<br /><br />You think this project is designed to engage you, the artist? No, it's<br />specifically and painstakingly geared towards the press, from the very<br />first words on the page, which after "Carnivore," are a quote from<br />Artforum. That serves as your introduction to Carnivore.<br /><br /> > So Rhizome's logo is intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to<br /> > remember about it is that it's not the same, which is a cool way to<br /> > [de/anti/un]-brand a net art resource called rhizome.<br /><br />You have GOT to be kidding me. Rhizome's logo may very slightly change,<br />but it always looks the same. Sure, the spokes are different colors,<br />and in different directions, but it's instantly recognizable, and you<br />wouldn't need the "rhizome.org" text (which is, after all, static) to<br />know where it came from. That's the definition of a good, old fashioned<br />corporate logo. It would be like the Nike logo being slightly longer or<br />shorter every time you saw it – you would still instantly make the<br />connection.<br /><br /> > they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with<br /> > their work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting<br /> > their personal opinions about art and life, and their opinions<br /> > disagree with your opinions.<br /><br />Okay, let's listen to this artist.<br /><br /> On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Alexander Galloway wrote:<br /> > i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;)<br /><br />If you believe that he is not an artist, then your argument stands. If<br />you disagree with him, then your argument fails. Sure, he was being<br />facetious, but how do you know other artists weren't as well? Where you<br />there? How do you go about determining intentionality? It's all<br />guesswork, so I go based on what I get out of the work. Your Modernist<br />ideas about believing the "truth" of the artists words is<br />head-scratchingly weird.<br /> > must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk,<br /> > occasionally dropping the cryptic science and every now and then<br /> > getting into the odd three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN<br /> > SYVERSON? I'd like to think so!<br /><br />Home slice! :) Sure, homeSkillet, just don't pretend to be on da<br />outside, when you KNOW yo in here w/ me.<br /><br />- ben<br />+ + +<br /><br />bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> replied:<br /><br /> On Oct 8, 2004, at 1:37 PM, ryan griffis wrote:<br /><br /> > i'd have to agree here - the attack on Carnivore diverted some of your<br /> > questions Ben.<br /><br />Interesting – how so? I was asked directly about a few pieces,<br />Carnivore being one. I delivered my honest response. Besides, I think<br />Carnivore (as a non-feeling entity) can weather the criticism. ;)<br /><br /> > making a career is not necessarily oppositional to making "critical<br /> > art."<br /><br />No, nor do I think successful people are "selling out." My problem with<br />Carnivore is that it is duplicitous in its careerAspirationalism.<br /><br /> > i've applied for enough teaching gigs (and reappointments) to know<br /> > that there's marketing involved in just getting and keeping a job.<br /><br />MosDef, but there are many different marketing strategies, the brand<br />aGalloway employs being one of the more distasteful (at least in my<br />book). I'm all for marketing – Jeff Koons' [late80s/early90s] work<br />made a huge impression on me. ++ I know what the job market is like,<br />but aGalloway has a great job, and it's in no danger….<br /><br /> > while i think specificity is needed in criticism, the level of<br /> > personalization in your critique is not exactly constructive or<br /> > reflexive.<br /><br />I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em! To discuss Carnivore, I think you<br />have to discuss and examine aGalloway as well. Although my view of the<br />two and their relationship may not be flattering, I do believe it's<br />constructive to the discourse surrounding Carnivore.<br /><br /> > and just a one liner on current abstraction: the reconfiguration of<br /> > data into abstractions is connected with a whole range of post-image<br /> > representation that is replacing naturalistic signs of "truth." (see<br /> > the visible human project, the human genome project and the use of<br /> > satellite/surveillance imagery).<br /><br />That's a nice way of putting it. However, all of the projects you<br />mention are fascinating because they offer us new insight and ways of<br />viewing our world. In contrast, zoomyDataBoxes in Flash give me no new<br />insight, and no new tools for seeing my world. Which is not to say that<br />you were making that connexion – I just want to make sure no one reads<br />this and equates the massive effort and implications of the Human<br />Genome project with some of the abstract dataTwiddling that goes on<br />here.<br /><br />best,<br /><br />- ben<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />"~~~~|\/\/\/\/\/\/|~~~~" <llacook@yahoo.com> added:<br /><br />flash is still too new, and still taking real baby<br />steps toward an actual networked art, to have accrued<br />a formalism just yet…<br /><br />i would save the fomalism for C++ work, some Java…<br />ben:<br />If you stripped away the conceptual<br />element, and I only had the visuals, I would<br />absolutely disagree that<br />they were interesting-looking.<br /><br />curt:<br />not me! we disagree.<br />lewis:<br />could you ever get to the pure visuals? could you ever<br />experience the visuals without SOME patina of<br />conceptualization? isn't that how the human race is<br />doomed? <br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of<br />the New Museum of Contemporary Art.<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard<br />Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for<br />the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council<br />on the Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 9, number 40. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org<br />are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art<br />and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome<br />Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org.<br /><br />To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>.<br />Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the<br />Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>.<br /><br />Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the<br />site is open to members and non-members alike.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />
