RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.23.04

discussion

Posted Jan. 22 2004 19:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.23.04

RHIZOME DIGEST: January 23, 2004 Content: +announcement+ 1. Francis Hwang: Help Rhizome improve its search engine! 2. Jordan Crandall: Under Fire 3. 220hex: BEK survives (was: URGENT - BEK: Call for support) 4. James Oliverio: Digital Media and Arts Conference March 10-12, 2004 Orlando, Florida, USA +opportunity+ 5. Lynda Chau: Call for Submissions for Digifest 2004 in Toronto 6. Rachel Greene: RHIZOME.ORG NET ART COMMISSIONS – CALL FOR PROPOSALS +feature+ 7. Rachel Greene, Pall Thayer, Jim Andrews, Lee Wells, Michael Szpakowski, JM Haefner, twhid, Ivan Pope, Jessica Loseby, Patrick Lichty, Nicholas Economos, Atomic Elroy: Question for artists who seek commissions + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + **RHIZOME NEEDS TO RAISE $27K BY FEBRUARY 1, 2004** Do you value Rhizome Digest? If so, consider making a contribution and helping Rhizome.org to be self-sustaining. A contribution of $15 will qualify you for a 10-20% discount in items in the New Museum of Contemporary Art's Store, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.newmuseum.org/comersus/store/comersus_dynamicIndex.asp">http://www.newmuseum.org/comersus/store/comersus_dynamicIndex.asp</a> and a donation of $50 will get you a funky Rhizome t-shirt designed by artist Cary Peppermint. Send a check or money order to Rhizome.org, New Museum, 583 Broadway, New York, NY, 10012 or give securely and quickly online: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/support/?digest0123">http://www.rhizome.org/support/?digest0123</a> **BE AN ACTIVE ROOT** + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 1.19.04 From: Francis Hwang (francis@rhizome.org) Subject: Help Rhizome improve its search engine! If you are a Rhizome user who lives in the New York City area, you can help us improve our search engine by coming to our office and participating in a usability study. This study will take place during the week of February 2 to February 6, at our office in the New Museum building in the SoHo neighborhood of New York City. It should take around 30 minutes of your time. Study participants will receive a one-year extension of their current Rhizome membership. You can participate if your membership has expired; in that case you will receive a membership that is good for one-year after the day that you come in. Please email me if you would like to participate. Francis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 1.20.04 From: Jordan Crandall (crandall@blast.org) Subject: Under Fire UNDER FIRE: an online forum on violence and representation organized by Jordan Crandall with co-editors: Asef Bayat, Susan Buck-Morss, Hamid Dabashi, Brian Holmes, and Gema Martin Munoz Under Fire explores the organization and representation of contemporary armed conflict. The project consists of a series of presentations and discussions that will occur online and in Rotterdam, beginning January 22, 2004. The discussions will involve participation from individuals working in politics, theory, criticism, the arts, and journalism from both the West and the Middle East. A series of publications will be released during the course of the year. WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS. To subscribe to the mailinglist, please send an email to underfire-request@list.v2.nl with the following word in the SUBJECT line: subscribe Under Fire explores the organization and representation of contemporary armed conflict. On the organizational front, it looks at the forms of militarized agencies that are emerging today, including Western defense industries and decentralized terrorist organizations. It explores the forces that contribute to their emergence, whether operating at the level of economy, technology, politics, or ideology. On the representational front, it looks at the ways that armed violence materializes as act and image, searching for new insight into its mechanisms and effects. In so doing, it engages issues of economy, embodiment, symbolic meaning, and affect. The project delves into the economic underpinnings of contemporary armed conflict. It looks at the legacy of the "military-industrial complex," the rise of the privatized military industry, and the repercussions of the commercialization of violence. However it does not simply prioritize economy. It looks to contemporary conflicts as driven by combinations of territorial, market, and ideological imperatives, and new attempts at the reconciliation of identity and universality. It looks to emergent processes of organization that operate on multiple levels of temporality and implicit form. Through this approach, the project aims to articulate emergent systems of decentralized control and new global dynamics of power. Building on historical conceptions of hegemony, it attempts to understand the nature of emergent power and the forms of resistance to it, situating cycles of violence within the modalities of a global system. The project emphasizes the role that representations play as registers of symbolic meaning and as agents of affective change. It engages images from commercial and independent news media, as well as representations from artistic, literary, and popular entertainment sources, both in the West and the Middle East. These images are regarded in terms of attention strategy and perception management, but they are also regarded in terms of cultural imaginaries of conflict, where they can operate as "fictionalized components of reality." They are studied in terms of the deeper truths they may offer about collective identifications and aggressions, and their roles in the formation of a new body politic. The project consists of as a series of organized discussions that will occur online and in Rotterdam, throughout the year 2004. These discussions will involve participation from individuals working in politics, theory, criticism, the arts, and journalism from both the West and the Middle East. Rather than relying on discourses based upon Western conceptions of modernity, the project is dedicated to opening up new historical perspectives, exploring the potential of Islamist discourse as a source of critical and political debate. It will thus include participation from progressive thinkers in the Islamic world. While most of these discussions will be conducted in English, sections will be translated into Arabic. A series of publications will be released during the course of the year. Each of these publications will be organized around a key interpretive concept that emerges in the proceedings. Through this approach, Under Fire aims to help open up a discursive terrain that can offer new insights into symptomatic violence, and alternatives to its perpetuation. For more information contact Witte de With at info@wdw.nl. Witte de With, center for contemporary art, Witte de Withstraat 50, 3012 BR, Rotterdam <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wdw.nl">http://www.wdw.nl</a> info@wdw.nl special events: January 24: Presentation of the project by Jordan Crandall in Witte de With, Rotterdam, at 5.30 p.m. Exhibition open daily from 11 a.m. till 6 p.m. January 27: Lecture by Jordan Crandall in the context of the International Film Festival Rotterdam. Location: Off_Corso, Rotterdam, 3 p.m. (For information see <a rel="nofollow" href="http://filmfestivalrotterdam.com">http://filmfestivalrotterdam.com</a>) May 28-30: Conference at Witte de With, Rotterdam with editors Asef Bayat, Susan Buck-Morss, Jordan Crandall, Hamid Dabashi, Brian Holmes, and Gema Martin Munoz. Asef Bayat is the Academic Director of the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) and the ISIM Chair at the University of Leiden. He has taught sociology and Middle East studies at the American University in Cairo an has held visiting positions at the University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University and the University of Oxford. He is currently program director of an ISIM research program on socio-religious movements and social change in contemporary Muslim societies. Susan Buck-Morss is Professor of Political Philosophy and Social Theory in the Department of Government at Cornell University, where she is also Professor of Visual Culture in the Department of Art History. Her books include The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt Institute (1979); The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project (1991); Dreamworld and Catastrophe: the Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West (2002); and Thinking Past Terror: Islam and Critical Theory on the Left (2003). Jordan Crandall is a visual artist and media theorist. He is Assistant Professor in the Visual Arts Department at University of California, San Diego. He is the author of Drive: Technology, Mobility, and Desire (2002); co-editor of Interaction: Artistic Practice in the Network (1999); and founding editor of a forthcoming journal of philosophy, art, cultural studies, and science studies. Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and the director of Graduate Studies at the Center for Comparative Literature and Society at Columbia University. His research interests include the comparative study of cultures, Islamic intellectual history, and the social and intellectual history of Iran, both modern and medieval. His publications include Authority in Islam: From the Rise of Muhammad to the Establishment of the Umayyads (1989), Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1993), Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of Ayn Al-Qudat Al-Hamadhani (1999), Staging a Revolution: The Art of Persuasion in the Islamic Republic of Iran (with Peter Chelkowski, 1999), and Close Up: Iranian Cinema, Past, Present, Future (2001). Brian Holmes and is an art critic, cultural theorist, and activist, particularly involved with the mapping of contemporary capitalism. He is a member of the French activist association Ne pas plier (Do not bend). He has recently published an anthology of his critical writing called Hieroglyphs of the Future (2003). Gema Martin Munoz is Professor of Sociology of the Arab and Islamic world at Madrid Autonoma University and Director of Maghreb-Middle East at the Centro de Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid. She is editor of Islam, Modernism and the West: Cultural and Political Relations at the End of the Millennium (1999). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 1.22.04 From: 220hex (gif@220hex.org) Subject: BEK survives (was: URGENT - BEK: Call for support) Last autumn BEK, Bergen Centre for Electronic Arts, was running the risk of having to close down due to lack of future fundings. To prevent this we launched a massive lobbying campaign towards the Ministry of Culture, The Norwegian Parliament, The Municipality of Bergen, etc. We also called for artists and others concerned to express their support for BEK at our website. Almost 600 persons responded to this call for support. Concidering that BEK is a small and young organization, that was very impressive. The support statements were forwarded to all relevant politicians and bureaucrats: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bek.no/demo_html">http://www.bek.no/demo_html</a> Shortly before christmas the Parliament decided to grant support for BEK for the future. In the beginning of January The Norwegian Council for Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of Culture desided to provide additional funding for BEK. BEK now has a long-term security concerning fundings that we have never experienced before. On behalf of everyone involved with BEK (staff, artists, users, etc.) I want to express our gratitude towards all of you that supported us. Sincerely, Gisle Frøysland + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 1.22.04 From: James Oliverio (jamesoliverio@earthlink.net) Subject: Digital Media and Arts Conference March 10-12, 2004 Orlando, Florida, USA The International Digital Media and Arts Association (iDMAa) will host iDMAc 2004 in Orlando, Florida on March 10-12, 2004. iDMAc 2004 is a conference with a unique structure designed to answer the key questions for artists, faculty and administrators building Digital Media and Digital Arts academic programs. The conference will be held in Orlando, the heart of a burgeoning digital media community, and coincides with the 2004 Florida Film Festival. Papers, artwork and innovative presentations are welcome. For more information on conference registration, please visit : <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.idmaa.org/idmac2004">http://www.idmaa.org/idmac2004</a> Featured Opening Speaker will be Art David, a master of cinematic composition for special effects production. His firm, Wavelight, has contributed effects for many feature films including The Matrix, Signs, Men in Black 2, Starship Troopers, Contact and Superboy. Mr. David has won two national Emmy awards for editing. The Closing Speaker will be Jim Spoto, Computer Graphics Supervisor for Electronic Arts (EA), the world's largest computer game and electronic entertainment company. His talk entitled "The Future of the Electronic Game Industry (or why your students all want to work for me!)" considers the future of interactive entertainment as videogames mature and converge with mainstream culture. Mr. Spoto will also discuss the kinds of skills that EA seeks when interviewing potential employees. The International Digital Media & Arts Association was organized by and for people working in at the leading edges of disciplines including Art, Communication, Computer Science, Film, Information Science, Journalism, Media Studies, Music, Psychology, Video, and Theater. Founding member institutions include Ball State, Bowling Green, Columbia College, Florida State, Stetson, SUNY, Union, and the Universities of Central Florida, Denver, Florida, Georgia, Montana, Warwick, and Wisconsin. Professionals working in all fields related to the emerging growth area of digital media are invited to attend the iDMAc 2004 in Orlando, Florida on March 10-12, 2004. The event boasts industry sponsorship from Electronic Arts and Pearson Prentice Hall with academic sponsorship from Ball State University and the University of Central Florida. For more information on iDMAa, please visit: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.idmaa.org">http://www.idmaa.org</a> Or contact: Jeff Rutenbeck President, iDMAa jrutenbe@du.edu Phone (303) 871-3949 James Oliverio Chair, Public Relations oliverio@ufl.edu Phone (352) 294-2020 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 1.19.04 From: Lynda Chau (lynda.chau@dx.org) Subject: Call for Submissions for Digifest 2004 in Toronto The New Voices Competition is an opportunity for emerging and mid-career designers, artists, and technologists to showcase their latest innovations in digital media technologies. Winners of the competition will receive travel and accommodations to present their work at Digifest 2004: On the Move in Toronto, May 13 - 16. Winning entries will also be highlighted in both the Digifest program and an online catalogue hosted by Design Exchange. This year¹s theme is ?On the Move¹. We¹re challenging you to submit work that examines or demonstrates the impact of digital technologies on culture. Submission Categories 1. HOME - virtual homes, homelessness, migration, security, wirelessness, nomads, transportable environments… 2. SELF - wearable computers, bio-engineering, identity, prosthetics, romance, telecommuting… 3. TRIBE - wireless culture, transient communities, magnets, psychogeography, mobs, robots, The deadline for entries is January 26, 2004. For more information and to download a submission form, visit www.dx.org/digifest. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 1.20.04 From: Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org) Subject: RHIZOME.ORG NET ART COMMISSIONS – CALL FOR PROPOSALS RHIZOME.ORG NET ART COMMISSIONS CALL FOR PROPOSALS +Deadline for proposals: February 15, 2004+ Rhizome.org is pleased to announce that with support from The Jerome Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation, five new net art projects (works of art that are made to be experienced online) will be commissioned in 2004. The fee for each commission will range from $1,500 $3,500. Rhizome.org is an online platform for the global new media art community. We are committed to supporting the creation, presentation, discussion and preservation of art that engages new technologies in significant ways. We emphasize innovation and inclusiveness in all of our programs and activities. Artists are invited to submit proposals for works of art that focus on the theme of games. +Games+ For the last several decades, computer-based games, through their ubiquity, economic influence, and innovative use of new technologies, have become a significant cultural force, surpassing Hollywood films in total revenues. For a number of years, new media artists have been exploring the possibilities of gaming platforms and creating art games that mix the best qualities of commercial games accessibility, interactivity, user-engagement with critical and progressive approaches to narrative and aesthetics. Artists seeking a Rhizome.org 2004 commission should propose projects that will contribute to the art game genre, or reflect in some way on the following broad interpretations of ³game² found at Dictionary.com, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=game">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=game</a>. Viewers/players should be able to access the projects online, whether by playing them through a web browser, downloading software, or some other use of internet technologies. When evaluating proposals, the jury will consider artistic merit, technical feasibility, and technical accessibility. Although we will provide some technical assistance with final integration into the Rhizome.org web site, artists are expected to develop game-related projects independently and without significant technical assistance from Rhizome.org. Commissioned projects will be listed on the main Rhizome Commission page and included in the Rhizome ArtBase. + How to Submit a Proposal + The jury will only consider proposals from members of Rhizome.org. To sign up for Rhizome membership, please visit: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rhizome.org/preferences/user.rhiz?action=1&new=user">http://www.rhizome.org/preferences/user.rhiz?action=1&new=user</a> There are two parts to proposal submission: 1. You must create a proposal in the form of a web site that includes the following key elements: + Project description (500 words maximum) that discusses your project¹s core concept, how you will realize your project and your project¹s feasibility. If you plan to work with assistants, consultants or collaborators, their roles and (if possible) names should be included. + You are encouraged, but not required, to include a production timeline and a project budget, which should include your own fee. If you have other funding sources for your project, please indicate this in your budget. + Your resume or Curriculum Vitae. For collaborative groups, provide either a collective CV or the CV¹s of all participants. + Up to 10 work samples. Note: More is not necessarily better. You should include only work samples that are relevant to your proposal. If your proposal has nothing to do with photography, don¹t include images from your photography portfolio. Please provide contextualizing information (title, date, medium, perhaps a brief description) to help the jury understand what they are looking at. The work sample can take any form, as long as it is accessible via the web. When designing your web-based proposal, please note that the jury will have limited time for evaluations, so try to make your site clear and concise. When your web-based proposal is complete, you are ready for Part Two of the proposal process: 2. Submit your proposal for a Rhizome.org Net Art Commission via an online form at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/submit_2004.rhiz">http://rhizome.org/commissions/submit_2004.rhiz</a>. We do not accept proposals via email, snail mail or other means. Proposals will be accepted until 5:00pm EST (that¹s New York time) on Friday, February 15, 2004. The form at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/submit_2004.rhiz">http://rhizome.org/commissions/submit_2004.rhiz</a> requires the following information: + Name of artist or collaborative group + Email address + Place of residence (city, state/province, country) + Title of the project (this can be tentative) + Brief description of project (50 words maximum) + URL of web-based proposal + Jury + Proposals will be reviewed by a jury consisting of German critic Tilman Baumgartel, artist Natalie Bookchin of CalArts, Rachel Greene of Rhizome.org, Francis Hwang of Rhizome.org, and Japanese curator Yukiko Shikata. Rhizome.org members will also participate in the evaluation and awarding process through secure web-based forms. Winners will be contacted on or after March 15, 2004. Each winner will be asked to sign an agreement with Rhizome.org governing the terms of the commission. + Winners + Winners will be announced on March 29, 2004. Commissioned projects must be completed by October 1, 2004. + Questions + If you have any questions about the Rhizome.org Net Art Commissions, please contact Feisal Ahmad at feisal@rhizome.org or 212.219.1288. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.net/your_account_name">http://rhizome.net/your_account_name</a>). Details at: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/services/1.php">http://rhizome.org/services/1.php</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 1.21.04-1.23.04 From: Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org), Pall Thayer (palli@pallit.lhi.is), Jim Andrews (jim@vispo.com), Lee Wells (lee@leewells.org), Michael Szpakowski (szpako@yahoo.com), JM Haefner (webgrrrl@mac.com), twhid (twhid@twhid.com), Ivan Pope (ivan@ivanpope.com), Jessica Loseby (jess@rssgallery.com), Patrick Lichty (voyd@voyd.com), Nicholas Economos (economos@infoblvd.net), Atomic Elroy (atomic@pcisys.net) Subject: Question for artists who seek commissions Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org) posted: I am interested in finding out from artists who seek commissions… Do you prefer when there is a theme to the commissions or if the CFP (call for proposals) is completely open? I would assume the latter but want some feedback. Thanks, Rachel + + + Pall Thayer (palli@pallit.lhi.is) replied: Definitely completely open. Themes tend to feel like someone's trying to tell you what your work should be about. I usually think, wow, a 3000 dollar commission would be really nice but their theme really has nothing to do with what I've been working on for the past 10 years. If I turn around now and do something entirely different just for the money, I'll feel like a traitor. Pall + + + Jim Andrews (jim@vispo.com) replied: if there is coincidence of interest and concern, that bodes well for meaningful communication between artist and 'client'. yet is 'artist-client' the relationship? yes and no. no, in the sense that the 'client' does not specify anywhere near as definitively what they want as a 'regular client' does. But, then, commissions are only, typically, $2000-$5000. Even monetarily the specifiable is thereby narrowed: the less the pay, the less you can specify. it has been interesting to see rhizome specify constraints that place the work within the rhizome interface as important parts of the interface. interfaces into the artbase, for instance, was one of the foci, was it not? chris fahey's piece was a delightful project that contributed to the searchability and experience of the artbase. i would say you got a deal if you got that for $5000. there was coincidence of interest and concern between rhizome and chris fahey. building web applications like that can be very expensive in the marketplace. also, there is the question of whether getting web development on the cheap by giving it exposure and platform in an art context is a worthwhile prospect 'politically'. some would say that if you really want art, don't make it serve the rhizome interface. fahey's project is a kind of counter-example which shows the potential value of such a focus. foci of functionality in the rhizome interface does encourage a kind of funk that i like: it is a type of art that bears relation to google's projects. in mathematics, number theory has been called 'the queen of mathematics' presumably because it is beautiful and useless. of course it is useless no more: big primes are in the realm of encryption and number theory. so too art needn't be useless. it needn't have a 'use' other than zephyr. and you bar the zephyr with spec. or zephyrs incongruent in interest and concern. so i think one must admit that foci of functionality in the rhizome interface has yielded some memorable art as well as a more enjoyable interface into the artbase, which the artists appreciate, but it is not a type of project that i would want to embark on myself, my zephyrs incongruent. so perhaps my note is more a comment on the phenomenon of defining specs for art comptetions that focus on functionality in the org web site. are you thinking of specifying such constraints again or what? apologies if i missed the announcement. ja <a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com">http://vispo.com</a> + + + Lee Wells (lee@leewells.org) wrote: A Theme please. Something to rally around. Something to create towards. Something to have fun with. Something to inspire others to do somethingslightly different. An open call for proposals is so 1999. An open call for proposals does not foster any sense of community. Themes drive individuals together by working towards a unified goals that have nothing to do with one another. Collaborations are where its at. Would it be possible to get everyone truly collaborating together in the Rhizome community? Just an opinion. Cheers, Lee + + + Lee Wells added: Make something new. Maybe you would learn something new. + + + Michael Szpakowski (szpako@yahoo.com) replied: I've been a bit out of it & not really following things properly but I did want to add my threepenn'orth to this- if I'm out of touch with the ebb & flow of the thread forgive me. A completely personal & subjective reaction but I *love* restrictions - I find they really stimulate my imagination. Having said that it tends to be *technical* restrictions that really get me going - I personally love things like 5k.org and ten second films.com , where you're fighting the intractibility of the technical brief but the subject matter is your own. FInally I agree 100% about collaborations -I love them, I do as many as I reasonably can & it would be nice to encourage more both because I think they're aesthetically of interest but also because they break down a lot of the unecessary and harmful barriers between artists that our competitive world constantly fosters and renews as I say, just my feelings, best michael + + + JM Haefner (webgrrrl@mac.com) replied: My sense is that things will fall pretty evenly on both sides. (0) Some cannot stand the constraints of a theme, or some already work within a theme that they don't think can fit in. (1) Others love the challenge of a theme or find it easier to work with one. I prefer (0) theme, but can apply myself to one (1). Now . . . , the idea of technical restrictions really does sound interesting! Jean Jean Haefner BFA, MFA Artist | Designer | Educator + + + twhid (twhid@twhid.com) replied: Yes! This is the main problem. If curators or art orgs (even one's as nice as Rhiz) decide to apply themes to art not-yet created we have the problem that art is being made that is at least a year or more behind what artists are thinking. The artists are leading the thinking, the orgs follow behind. It's fine to curate work that is already created and pull out themes from the evidence of the work, but to attempt to steer artists thinking is always going to miss the mark of what is really going on. For example, this theme of games, artists who are making cool stuff along these lines have been working on it for years already. Progressive artists are already onto something else, but we don't know what it is as it hasn't surfaced yet. Plus, as an artist who is working on ideas that are many times un-stylish or not seemingly current, I usually don't have any interest at all in the themes. I don't wish to pander to an institution for $$ and it's dangerous to one's work as it can sidetrack you as you attempt to develop a body of work with themes of your own devising. My question is: Why do institutions feel the need to slap thematic/content restrictions on work they commission? + + + Ivan Pope (ivan@ivanpope.com) replied: Personally, I'm not above just submitting whatever I've got on the go at the time and seeing whether the curators have any idea of their own theme. Generaly not. Or they are fishing for whatever comes through the door. Consider the current Rhizome call (not to attack it or anything, for illustration): Artists seeking a Rhizome.org 2004 commission should propose projects that … reflect in some way on the … interpretations of "game" found at Dictionary.com, [which includes]: Informal. 1.. Evasive, trifling, or manipulative behavior: wanted a straight answer, not more of their tiresome games. 2.. A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme: I saw through their game from the very beginning. Seeing as artists tend to avoid (or should avoid) literality, I would suggest it is up to the viewer to decide what the 'theme' of work is. Submit it and see. Cheers, Ivan + + + Jessica Loseby (jess@rssgallery.com) replied: I generally prefer open commissions themes, as usually I have to slightly sledge-hammer my ideas to fit themes. Arguably this is down to the gap I perceive in what curators look for (in terms of a curatorial thematics) for shows and what is actually the wide reaching thematics net (and digital) artists. I find it slightly depressing that curators feel that only certain themes 'sell' a show and others don't - it shows a lack of trust/faith in the artists. I must admit to stifling a yawn when I read the theme for the rhizome commission (for example) was games. It not that there isn't fantastic work being done in this area, but it (as a thematic) is so unrepresentative of the diverse ideas currently explored by net artists. I worry that high profile commissions sticking to these 'safe' areas simply re-enforce the (misguided) notion that net (digital) art is simply PS2's slightly eccentric sister. o /^ rssgallery.com + + + Patrick Lichty (voyd@voyd.com) replied: This is the main problem. If curators or art orgs (even one's as nice as Rhiz) decide to apply themes to art not-yet created we have the problem that art is being made that is at least a year or more behind what artists are thinking. The artists are leading the thinking, the orgs follow behind. It's fine to curate work that is already created and pull out themes from the evidence of the work, but to attempt to steer artists thinking is always going to miss the mark of what is really going on. ************************************* This appears that what I read is that there should be shows where artists should be asked to participate in an exhibition solely on their name recognition/historical body of work, etc. with less emphasis on a narrative arc from the curatorial staff. Being that I've been working with curators, artists, writers, and now film makers, my sense of perspective of the ways cultural production reaches the masses has been greatly illuminated. First of all, I have come to the realization that methods of cultural production such as curation, film production, etc., are subject to a set of constraints which lessen their hold the further you get from the institution. However, there is an inverse correlation to legitimacy as well, which is a problem. If I am reading this properly in that what is proposed is an artist-driven cutting-edge show with little through-line of a narrative arc for people to grasp, and that the engagement factor will be driven solely by the amazing work of the artists, I can only say that this is a weak premise. From an artistic perspective, it abandons the crucial element of concept. From an audience perspective, it elides any mnemonic for the patron to grasp. From an institutional perspective, it's well nigh impossible to get a board to approve such a thing as it's so amorphous. From a funding angle, foundations need to have some sort of indication of the work that is being produced from the institutions they are funding. And, from a curatorial perspective, it's unbelievably difficult from the perspective as to how one would have a bunch of artists, probably going in separate directions, doing their own thing, probably in discord with one another. I try to curate shows that have a higher standard than many independents from a scholarly and conceptual perspective, but from my experience with curatorial practice/interfacing with large institutions, metanarrative is essential as a form of mnemonic so that they and the audience can better engage with what's being shown. ************************************************ My question is: Why do institutions feel the need to slap thematic/content restrictions on work they commission? My first reaction was: "You're not serious, are you?" Mainly due to institutional constraints that call for accountability for the use of the funds, as well as the fundraising process, bureaucracy of arranging shows, publicity, creating support material and so on, you really have to have a narrative of some sort to get people to sign on, or just to understand and want to see the show itself. Art is a fairly niche culture, and net art is still a very, very small subset of that niche. To propose that the artist should be placed in control of the institutional agenda is a really interesting, if almost completely untenable idea. >From a practical perspective, I would see just throwing money out to artists and having them participate in shows/commission processes without some sort of theme would be relatively unsuccessful. I understand that the institution has its problems, but I now understand much better why they have these problems. Much like the hierarchical nature of humanity, I'm beginning to come to accept that many of the agendas that we are railing against as artists aren't going away anytime soon. The institution has its reasons for doing what it does (good or otherwise, but for what it does, they're valid from a pragmatic sense). The issue here is while it is quite exciting to do an independent curatorial program, it loses legitimacy the further you get from the institution unless it is backed up by solid scholarship, or if it is done with such professionalism that it refutes the institution itself. I think that independent curation is one of the most exciting areas that the Internet is offering the art community, but like blogs, these shows are proving hit or miss, but are excellent in their willingness to experiment. ++++++++++++ In short, I've found that you need a theme to get people to back your project and to get people to understand the works better. + + + t.whid replied: Well, I'm talking about commissions, not shows. Apologies if that wasn't clear. It's obvious to me that when a curator puts together a *group show* it's in everyone's best interest to apply some sort of theme to it or it becomes –and this is m.river's label– the Shotgun Show (as in, it's scattered). A theme adds to the work and the viewer's understanding of it. But when you have an open call for commissions, that is, *new work* one needs to ask themselves what is more important: some sort of thematic continuity to these artworks? (And if this is important, why is it important?) ~or~ good artwork. (singular artworks which are driven by the thoughts and concerns of the artists instead of the org holding the cash) My point is that artists are always the one's driving the important things happening in the artworld. And we would get better commissions if the art orgs realized this. There are plenty of granting bodies who solicit proposals with no thematic or content requirements. To name some: Creative Capital, Turbulence, NYFFA, etc. The main problem seems to be the idea that you'll kill two birds with one stone. You'll commission new artwork, while at the same time put together a thematic exhibition and IMO the two are exclusive. + + + Nicholas Economos (economos@infoblvd.net) replied: hello, themes don't necessarily encourage collaboration anymore than the lack of one hinders working together on a project. if you need a theme to motivate you and there is an open CFP for commissions, you can make up your own. I agree with t.whid, themes run the risk of excluding un-stylish yet relevant work. nicholas economos + + + Atomic Elroy (atomic@pcisys.net) wrote: totally open themes And I'm not being a smarty pants! themes help curators put together a "SHOW" instead of a mess. but narrow themes should not be put to open call but invitation. my humble opinion! AE04. + + + Editor's Note: Full thread available at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=11818&text=22761">http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=11818&text=22761</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Feisal Ahmad (feisal@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 9, number 4. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>. Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the site is open to members and non-members alike. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +