Re: Not for the Squeamish

not following the logic here..

JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
unreasonable conclusion.

since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
(aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)

On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:



It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
produce more shame.

JG


A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:


The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson

<http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org


The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.


–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Actually, I commend Joy for doing such a great job with "The Bomb
Project." I think its a very well researched site. I hope that many
people will go there for information on better understanding nuclear
related issues.

However, I wonder if Joy who appears to be very much against
"moralizing judgements" would approve of such a review because she
has such strong stance on these matters.

Nevertheless, I think that Helen Varley Jamieson did a very nice
concise summary of the site. Thanks for your input.




>not following the logic here..
>
>JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is
>moralizing happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice
>after a quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project
>ITSELF is somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically
>engaged artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also
>an unreasonable conclusion.
>
>since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could
>have done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>(aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the
>blurb and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>
>On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>
>
>
>It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
>produce more shame.
>
>JG
>
>
>A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>
>
> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>
><http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>
>
>The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy
>Garnett on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a
>"moralizing judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>
>
>–
><twhid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></twhid>

i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
work… but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.

please feel free to disagree with what i wrote – i did write that last
sentence – helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
"beautiful" – she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
aesthetic one. but my reaction differed – i didn't see how one can avoid
the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
– that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
super moralizing… tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?

or am i confused… is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to…
thanks, rachel




> not following the logic here..
>
> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
> unreasonable conclusion.
>
> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>
> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>
>
>
> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
> refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
> produce more shame.
>
> JG
>
>
> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>
>
> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>
> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>
>
> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>

i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived inconstancy
on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read the NAN item as aggressive
towards joy.

in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this original post.

and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out somewhere? let's
hear from her ;-)



At 10:55 -0400 9/6/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
>i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
>work… but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.
>
>please feel free to disagree with what i wrote – i did write that last
>sentence – helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
>"beautiful" – she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
>aesthetic one. but my reaction differed – i didn't see how one can avoid
>the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
>– that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
>super moralizing… tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?
>
>or am i confused… is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
>between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to…
>thanks, rachel
>
>
>
>
>> not following the logic here..
>>
>> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
>> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
>> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
>> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
>> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
>> unreasonable conclusion.
>>
>> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
>> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
>> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>>
>> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>>
>>
>>
>> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>> refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
>> produce more shame.
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>>
>>
>> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>>
>> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>>
>>
>> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
>> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
>> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>>

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Too bad we never heard from Joy Garnett. It would have been
interesting to read her viewpoint on "moralizing judgements" within
the context of a favorable "review" about her.

>i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived inconstancy
>on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read the NAN item as
>aggressive towards joy.
>
>in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this original post.
>
>and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out somewhere? let's
>hear from her ;-)
>
>
>
>At 10:55 -0400 9/6/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
>>i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
>>work… but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.
>>
>>please feel free to disagree with what i wrote – i did write that last
>>sentence – helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
>>"beautiful" – she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
>>aesthetic one. but my reaction differed – i didn't see how one can avoid
>>the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
>>– that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
>>super moralizing… tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?
>>
>>or am i confused… is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
>>between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to…
>>thanks, rachel
>>
>>
>>
>>> not following the logic here..
>>>
>>> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>>> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>>> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>>> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>>> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
>>> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
>>> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
>>> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
>>> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
>>> unreasonable conclusion.
>>>
>>> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>>> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>>> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
>>> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>>> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
>>> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>>>
>>> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>>> refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
>>> produce more shame.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>>>
>>> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>>>
>>>
>>> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>>> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>>> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>>> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>>>
>>> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>>>
>>>
>>> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
>>> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
>>> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>>>
>
>–
><twhid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></twhid>
>+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Hi all,

oops, I didn't mean to 'hide out' (where? in my titanium-alloy-slick, rad-proof and computer-free bunker??)

;)

I was really happy with the NAN review – the author (authors!) clearly understands and has no problem conveying the point/intent of the project; however, it also appears that the author (that would be Ms. Varley Jamieson) was disturbed and moved specifically by the aesthetic impact of this material, as in many ways I was initially, as a painter; a fact I find gratifying. (There is a seeming innappropriateness to being wowed by images of mass destruction. But there again is another point – as a culture, we tend to do just that.)

The project is indeed organized in a 'casual' manner as Rachel observes – the best journalistic efforts are; therein lies the challenge. There is no need to make a special emphasis when the extreme nature of the information speaks for itself. By removing the figure of 'author' as much as possible and laying out the "facts" in a fair and balanced way, one may leave questions of ethics and morality to the intelligent reader / artist / researcher. That would include the intelligent reviewer, to whom I do not begrudge their opinion. A variety of interpretations and opinions, conflicting or not, are inevitable – and welcome.

Which leads us to that last sentence, re-edited by Rachel:

"The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,…"

– that's a really important point, simple as it sounds. There are many activist anti-nuke sites, and neutral-seeming NGO sites, but none of them put the issue in an art context; why the art context is so important may be / should be expanded upon. It is under-valued. Its function and importance is not well-understood, (least of all among activists – another topic for another time perhaps…). And information decentralization is the name of the day. But hey, really: finding 'data, debris and aesthetics' all together in one sentence was a real turn-on – yes!

– and the last bit which may have seemed to be moralizing (not to me):

"…and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or politically disengaged artists."

Certainly there are politically disengaged artists among us – and those with agendas, and those who are in between. This serves as a provocation at best, a prod, but I wouldn't call it moralizing in view of the nature of the material at hand; it's really rather restrained.

Of course, we all know that everyone will bring a different set of values, agendas and emotions to bare on these issues. The point is really to provide access to as many approaches and viewpoints as one can, and to encourage people to think – and argue – for themselves.

Thanks for the discussion – and the great review.

Best,
Joy

"t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:

> i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived
> inconstancy on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read
> the NAN item as aggressive towards joy.

> in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this
> original post.

> and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out
> somewhere? let's
> hear from her ;-)

net art news coverage doesn't really constitute a review from rhizome's
point of view… it's a descriptive, subjective blurb service – we call it
news – not just because there is a new one each day but because we like to
think we cover a wide range of topics, events, projects. and because it
reaches people who are art enthusiasts, interested in the field but not
interested in lengthy, or maybe even critical, discourse. a wider net than
would be on raw, which seems for people very interested in new media art on
a more micro level.

of course, there are implied endoresements in the coverage in something with
such an upbeat, editorial tenor. especially in the context of a list with
artists in attendance who are actively seeking press and critical engagemnt
for their work. however, until i read your post, the idiom of 'review' never
occured to me. interesting… – rachel


> Too bad we never heard from Joy Garnett. It would have been
> interesting to read her viewpoint on "moralizing judgements" within
> the context of a favorable "review" about her.
>
>> i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived inconstancy
>> on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read the NAN item as
>> aggressive towards joy.
>>
>> in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this original post.
>>
>> and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out somewhere? let's
>> hear from her ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:55 -0400 9/6/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
>>> i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
>>> work… but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.
>>>
>>> please feel free to disagree with what i wrote – i did write that last
>>> sentence – helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
>>> "beautiful" – she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
>>> aesthetic one. but my reaction differed – i didn't see how one can avoid
>>> the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
>>> – that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
>>> super moralizing… tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?
>>>
>>> or am i confused… is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
>>> between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to…
>>> thanks, rachel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> not following the logic here..
>>>>
>>>> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>>>> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>>>> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>>>> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>>>> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
>>>> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
>>>> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
>>>> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
>>>> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
>>>> unreasonable conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>>>> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>>>> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
>>>> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>>>> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
>>>> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>>>>
>>>> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>>>> refrain from moralizing judgements– they only serve to inhibit, and to
>>>> produce more shame.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>>>> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>>>> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>>>> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
>>>> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
>>>> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>>>>
>>
>> –
>> <twhid>
>> http://www.mteww.com
>> </twhid>
>> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Nicely stated.



>Hi all,
>
>oops, I didn't mean to 'hide out' (where? in my
>titanium-alloy-slick, rad-proof and computer-free bunker??)
>
>;)
>
>I was really happy with the NAN review – the author (authors!)
>clearly understands and has no problem conveying the point/intent of
>the project; however, it also appears that the author (that would be
>Ms. Varley Jamieson) was disturbed and moved specifically by the
>aesthetic impact of this material, as in many ways I was initially,
>as a painter; a fact I find gratifying. (There is a seeming
>innappropriateness to being wowed by images of mass destruction. But
>there again is another point – as a culture, we tend to do just
>that.)
>
>The project is indeed organized in a 'casual' manner as Rachel
>observes – the best journalistic efforts are; therein lies the
>challenge. There is no need to make a special emphasis when the
>extreme nature of the information speaks for itself. By removing the
>figure of 'author' as much as possible and laying out the "facts" in
>a fair and balanced way, one may leave questions of ethics and
>morality to the intelligent reader / artist / researcher. That would
>include the intelligent reviewer, to whom I do not begrudge their
>opinion. A variety of interpretations and opinions, conflicting or
>not, are inevitable – and welcome.
>
>Which leads us to that last sentence, re-edited by Rachel:
>
>"The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>in an art context points at issues of information
>decentralization,…"
>
>– that's a really important point, simple as it sounds. There are
>many activist anti-nuke sites, and neutral-seeming NGO sites, but
>none of them put the issue in an art context; why the art context is
>so important may be / should be expanded upon. It is under-valued.
>Its function and importance is not well-understood, (least of all
>among activists – another topic for another time perhaps…). And
>information decentralization is the name of the day. But hey,
>really: finding 'data, debris and aesthetics' all together in one
>sentence was a real turn-on – yes!
>
>– and the last bit which may have seemed to be moralizing (not to me):
>
>"…and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>politically disengaged artists."
>
>Certainly there are politically disengaged artists among us – and
>those with agendas, and those who are in between. This serves as a
>provocation at best, a prod, but I wouldn't call it moralizing in
>view of the nature of the material at hand; it's really rather
>restrained.
>
>Of course, we all know that everyone will bring a different set of
>values, agendas and emotions to bare on these issues. The point is
>really to provide access to as many approaches and viewpoints as one
>can, and to encourage people to think – and argue – for themselves.
>
>Thanks for the discussion – and the great review.
>
>Best,
>Joy
>
>"t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived
>> inconstancy on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read
>> the NAN item as aggressive towards joy.
>
>> in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this
>> original post.
>
>> and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out
>> somewhere? let's
>> hear from her ;-)
>
>
>+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php