. community —

what if and tid bits i cry to much

is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophically something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….



———————————
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

Comments

David Goldschmidt June 6 2002 01:00Reply

death is good … it is followed by re-birth.

david goldschmidt


> is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?
>
> why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophically
something else
>
> why can't everybody under stand potential
>
> i am dead
…………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………….

>
>
>
> ———————————
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

Eryk Salvaggio June 6 2002 01:00Reply

I think "careerism" is a good catch all phrase for explaining away every
aspect of the art world we don't like,
but in this case I have to disagree, and I'm disagreeing based on a
position of 1) I am not a careerist and
2) I believe painting is an obsolete art form.

Here are the reasons I give for 2) since position 1) is arguable
depending on who you ask. I will make clear
that I fervently believe that _any_ form of expression is a valid art
form. Look at the Salvaggio-Museum if
you want money where my mouth is. I do not believe we even need to
declare an area of art an "art form" in
order to make it valid art. Yesterday, I was in an art supply store, and
considered stealing the notebooks they
leave out for people to test pens. They were beautiful collaborative
drawings- squiggles, unicorns, calligraphy
and multitudes of colors and random phrases- but I got nervous because
the woman just told me my friend
had been fired and I didn't want to be the guy who went in there to
steal used notebooks. But I digress [that's
really how you use the word "digress" by the way].

So, I want to say something: There is Art1 and there is Art2. Art1 [and
the numbers are arbitrary] are the
artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external expression of an
idea or emotion or concept; but also
deals specifically with beauty and aesthetics. This is the category I
have dedicated the Salvaggio-Museum to,
the idea of every day artifacts and accidental manifestations of
inhibited creative energy.

Art2 is the academic side of art, fueled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques. This is the art
that most art museums are dedicated to and the stuff that most people
pay for. This art is created on a
line from cave paintings to Eduardo Kac. But because it is on a line,
there is a need for this art to swim or
drown. It must always be absolutely modern if it is going to catch us in
an unexpected way. Too often, Art2
is replaced by Art2a and Art2b; Art2a being a preoccupation with history
and personal expression, that is,
people who create art solely for the purpose of expressing continuing
concepts, and Art2b consisting of
people solely interested in innovating technology for the sake of art,
with the concept of personal, emotional
expression coming secondary to the "shock of the new." [Rhizome consists
mainly of Art2b; it's only been
recently that I have accepted that this is not an entirely bad thing;
just not my most preferable.] I'd much
prefer to see a union between Art2a and Art2b, which could lead us to
Art3, which is what all of us are
waiting for. [Last metaphor would be to look at music and technology:
You have the Art2b music of
Autechre; the Art2a of Annie Difranco, and the Art3 of say, Aphex Twin.
Nothing wrong with any of
them.]

Anyway; painting as Art1 is fine. But when painting declares that it is
Art2, Art2a, 2b or 3, we fall into
the concern that just maybe it isn't. It is an antique as far as
innovation is concerned and so therefore can't
be considered in the same world. And it shouldn't be. People who are
insulted by this concept of Art1 not
being Art2 need to figure out why Art2 is so important to them. The
answer, usually, is that Art2 carries
the "scene." It is where people get paid, it is where people say "Hey,
you're a star!" The reason for this,
in my own opinion, anyway, is that Art1 is too embarrassed of its own
sincerity in an ironic world. Sincerity
is also an antique. But when the value judgements of Art2 are sought out
for someone making Art1, it's
just like Billy bringing his Baking Soda Volcano to the NASA convention.
It's the wrong scope. It's a fallacy
to assume that the larger the scale the more valid; which is why I can't
understand why so many Art1's need
the validation of an Art2. You paint because you love to paint, okay.
You paint to express ideas, fine; there's
nothing wrong with painting, poetry or good wine. But why anyone needs
to assume that good wine is a kind
of television is beyond me. It's confusing a Pit Bull with a Bulldog.
Both are Dogs, but they're both very
different kinds of dogs.

Cheers,
-e.







furtherfield wrote:

> Hello Natalie,
>
>
>
> I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to
> dismiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer
> is that it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own
> practice enough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better
> etc, in the end everyone looks in that direction like frightened sheep
> with a self - conscious glance. In a system that is led by trend it is
> important to have scapegoats that can be cast in the realm of the
> past, that historical trash can of what is known as obsolete. It is
> about supply and demand - and it certainly is not about philosophical
> reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be. All products must have
> an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist strategy in the
> cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is nothing
> wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if
> one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as
> painting do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via
> digital, installation, code - for they are re-inventing the future
> with their own names, instigating the process of branding for all to
> see. Claiming new languages, claiming power, claiming a space in the
> future, discounting the past as dead, the future as alive because they
> are potentially part of that idiom. That is how things work and in a
> world that places the delusion over humanity, what else can you
> expect? The function contradicts their words…
>
>
>
> marc
>
>
> is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?
>
> why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not
> philosophically something else
>
> why can't everybody under stand potential
>
> i am dead
> …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
>
>
> ————————————————————————
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl>
> of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>

marc garrett June 6 2002 01:00Reply

Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to dismis=
s one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is that it=
is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice enough=
by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end everyo=
ne looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - conscious gl=
ance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoats t=
hat can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of what=
is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly is =
not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be. All=
products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist str=
ategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is noth=
ing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if one=
expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painting d=
o not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, install=
ation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names, in=
stigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new languages, c=
laiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as dead=
, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. That=
is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humanity, =
what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words…

marc


is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophically =
something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead ………………………………………………………=
…………………………………………………………………=
………….





—————————————————————————=

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

Plasma Studii June 6 2002 01:00Reply

>Hello Natalie,
>
>I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to
>dismiss one type of art/method to put another in its place.
>The answer is that it is political and careeer led - if one
>advertises their own practice enough by promoting that activity as
>new, the best, better etc, in the end everyone looks in that
>direction like frightened sheep with a self - conscious glance. In a
>system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoats that
>can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of
>what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it
>certainly is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might
>yearn it to be. All products must have an expirary date in the land
>of plenty, a modernist strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of
>postmodern ideoligies. There is nothing wrong with people creating
>their art work on their own terms but if one expects to be taken on
>as an equal when creating an art such as painting do not expect to
>be respected by those who rule the day via digital, installation,
>code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names,
>instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new
>languages, claiming power, claiming a space in the future,
>discounting the past as dead, the future as alive because they are
>potentially part of that idiom. That is how things work and in a
>world that places the delusion over humanity, what else can you
>expect? The function contradicts their words…
>
>marc
>
>
>is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?
>
>why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not
>philosophically something else
>
>why can't everybody under stand potential
>
>i am dead


I got a totally different take. (Much more personal than political)
But that's one thing that makes this really cool. That we had a
reaction at all, even though we are looking from very different
angles. Work that has relevance from varied approaches is so rare on
the web.

why do people think paintings are someTHING at all? Things are
interchangeable. Words/thoughts/histories are things and thus have
NO particular value. Potential is a thing. What you did is gone
now, it's just words. Concentrate not on the things but what you are
DOING. Death is really not so detrimental if you just haven't died.

judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

marc garrett June 6 2002 01:00Reply

Hello Eryk,

I don't know. It does seem strange, almost useless arguing such a thing as =
this with you once again. We had a similar discussion about a year ago (I t=
hink) on this and I remember that we did not agree then and it does not see=
m will budge on our original interpretations on this (as you might agree, v=
ery worn out) argument. But just like you, I enjoy getting shifting cranium=
into gear and having a good chat about such issues every now and then. So =
with a warm respect for your position and ideas on such a thing, I will put=
my pennies worth into the glut. On an issue that probably will not be reso=
lved until the market & Academia decides something must change for its own =
greedy-like intentions.

What you believe is of course your own take, and it just so happens due to =
circumstance it seems that you reside in the 'painting is dead' camp. And i=
t is lucky for you (and me) that we have decided not to explore the activit=
y of painting and therefore are not branded, or stigmatized as second-rate =
citizens because of this. I personally feel a sense of regret that certain =
'arts' activities have been and are pushed aside for the sake of new practi=
ces, I also do not trust many people's motives to kill something of which i=
s not theirs to kill.

For I believe that art (the act of creating) is a personal choice and when =
someone is told that they are doing something wrong or not relevant, especi=
ally when it is something that they enjoy, and people say 'ah, that's dead,=
long gone'. I get goose pimples all over (almost). On who's terms is paint=
ing dead? I am not arguing that painting should be saved or anything like t=
hat but what I am questioning is people's urgency to kill a dream, or an in=
timate function that can bring beauty or a certain poetic reasoniong to som=
eone's life via a process of making art. To take that away by devaluing it =
via terms of art domination over creative choice I feel is wrong. All thoug=
h, there could be some positive outcomes of such things happening for paint=
ing. For me, if people just painted outside of the art arena, it would give=
it more credence, in fact more value. The Art arena is yet another social =
construction it seems to seperate the valid and the invalid. This is new, s=
o therefore better…

Those who have decided to for whatever reason to pursue or partake in such =
a so called, labeled 'dead thing' must of course come to terms with the fac=
t that the moving image, recent strategic shifts of net creativity and the =
academic, are holding the 'Vanguard reigns'. I do not feel comfortable with=
this 2-tier situation of market led & academic led control. This means tha=
t there is a type of thought control on what one must pursue as a creative =
individual or group. We must not forget that just because we have the privi=
lege or advantage to be seen as exploring 'cutting edge' work in the wester=
n hemisphere, does not mean that it is a valid or right right thing to be d=
oing.

I am not an anti capitalist in respect to it being an everyday function or =
in the very real sense of survival, and of course we all must eat. Yet I am=
not happy to be told what is good and what is bad by people who I do not k=
now or respect. This does not mean you of course. I mean higher up, the 'Th=
ought Police', those people who for some reason have convinced themselves t=
hat what they say must be- the be and end all. It's like having a parent te=
lling us 'You're too old for this now, or this is not appropriate'. And I a=
m not a child so I listen to my own heart in relation to what I believe and=
learn from real experience (outside thought police perameters) whether it =
may seem misguided or not. And on that premise I can gather 'embodied knowl=
edge' on a subject. Whether painting is dead is not the issue, it's much mo=
re to do with why people wish to say such about harsh things in the first p=
lace that I question.

I am very interested in the variants on code as art, but that does not mean=
that my eyes are closed from appreciating a message, a concept in a painti=
ng just because it is not conforming to a protocol. I know that I will not =
budge you on this one Eryk, and our ideas can sometimes clash. But I apprec=
iate where you are coming from conceptually and in respect of historical ev=
ents. I knid of agree with a lot of what you say but have a deep doubt to t=
rust the way things are panning out. So - I agree a lot, but in priciple fe=
el alarmed. I have yearning of a luddite, to smash up all this computer stu=
ff that I myself am using, yet enjoy the adventure of exploring new strateg=
ies at the same time. What a confused bunny I must be eh!

marc


I think "careerism" is a good catch all phrase for explaining away every =
aspect of the art world we don't like,
but in this case I have to disagree, and I'm disagreeing based on a posit=
ion of 1) I am not a careerist and
2) I believe painting is an obsolete art form.

Here are the reasons I give for 2) since position 1) is arguable dependin=
g on who you ask. I will make clear
that I fervently believe that _any_ form of expression is a valid art for=
m. Look at the Salvaggio-Museum if
you want money where my mouth is. I do not believe we even need to declar=
e an area of art an "art form" in
order to make it valid art. Yesterday, I was in an art supply store, and =
considered stealing the notebooks they
leave out for people to test pens. They were beautiful collaborative draw=
ings- squiggles, unicorns, calligraphy
and multitudes of colors and random phrases- but I got nervous because th=
e woman just told me my friend
had been fired and I didn't want to be the guy who went in there to steal=
used notebooks. But I digress [that's
really how you use the word "digress" by the way].

So, I want to say something: There is Art1 and there is Art2. Art1 [and t=
he numbers are arbitrary] are the
artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external expression of an id=
ea or emotion or concept; but also
deals specifically with beauty and aesthetics. This is the category I hav=
e dedicated the Salvaggio-Museum to,
the idea of every day artifacts and accidental manifestations of inhibite=
d creative energy.

Art2 is the academic side of art, fueled by innovative ideas fused with i=
nnovative techniques. This is the art
that most art museums are dedicated to and the stuff that most people pay=
for. This art is created on a
line from cave paintings to Eduardo Kac. But because it is on a line, the=
re is a need for this art to swim or
drown. It must always be absolutely modern if it is going to catch us in =
an unexpected way. Too often, Art2
is replaced by Art2a and Art2b; Art2a being a preoccupation with history =
and personal expression, that is,
people who create art solely for the purpose of expressing continuing con=
cepts, and Art2b consisting of
people solely interested in innovating technology for the sake of art, wi=
th the concept of personal, emotional
expression coming secondary to the "shock of the new." [Rhizome consists =
mainly of Art2b; it's only been
recently that I have accepted that this is not an entirely bad thing; jus=
t not my most preferable.] I'd much
prefer to see a union between Art2a and Art2b, which could lead us to Art=
3, which is what all of us are
waiting for. [Last metaphor would be to look at music and technology: You=
have the Art2b music of
Autechre; the Art2a of Annie Difranco, and the Art3 of say, Aphex Twin. N=
othing wrong with any of
them.]

Anyway; painting as Art1 is fine. But when painting declares that it is A=
rt2, Art2a, 2b or 3, we fall into
the concern that just maybe it isn't. It is an antique as far as innovati=
on is concerned and so therefore can't
be considered in the same world. And it shouldn't be. People who are insu=
lted by this concept of Art1 not
being Art2 need to figure out why Art2 is so important to them. The answe=
r, usually, is that Art2 carries
the "scene." It is where people get paid, it is where people say "Hey, yo=
u're a star!" The reason for this,
in my own opinion, anyway, is that Art1 is too embarrassed of its own sin=
cerity in an ironic world. Sincerity
is also an antique. But when the value judgements of Art2 are sought out =
for someone making Art1, it's
just like Billy bringing his Baking Soda Volcano to the NASA convention. =
It's the wrong scope. It's a fallacy
to assume that the larger the scale the more valid; which is why I can't =
understand why so many Art1's need
the validation of an Art2. You paint because you love to paint, okay. You=
paint to express ideas, fine; there's
nothing wrong with painting, poetry or good wine. But why anyone needs to=
assume that good wine is a kind
of television is beyond me. It's confusing a Pit Bull with a Bulldog. Bot=
h are Dogs, but they're both very
different kinds of dogs.

Cheers,
-e.







furtherfield wrote:

Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to di=
smiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is tha=
t it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice en=
ough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end ev=
eryone looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - consciou=
s glance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoa=
ts that can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of =
what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly=
is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be.=
All products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist=
strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is =
nothing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if=
one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painti=
ng do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, ins=
tallation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names=
, instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new language=
s, claiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as =
dead, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. =
That is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humani=
ty, what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words…

marc


is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophica=
lly something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead …………………………………………………..=
…………………………………………………………………=
……………..





————————————————————————–
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

marc garrett June 6 2002 01:00Reply

Hello Judson,

I suppose the other question that Natalie posed was 'is it normal to turn i=
nto the person you always hated ?' I'd say yes in a sense, but for many rea=
sons. One could be that we can discover that our earlier presumptions were =
wrong and not accurate but the fear of change dictated our view at the time=
. Sometimes when we change, the process itself can feel like something has =
died inside. Yet we are renewed each day…

Marc




Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to di=
smiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is tha=
t it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice en=
ough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end ev=
eryone looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - consciou=
s glance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoa=
ts that can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of =
what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly=
is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be.=
All products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist=
strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is =
nothing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if=
one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painti=
ng do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, ins=
tallation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names=
, instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new language=
s, claiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as =
dead, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. =
That is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humani=
ty, what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words…

marc


is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophicall=
y something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead



I got a totally different take. (Much more personal than political) But t=
hat's one thing that makes this really cool. That we had a reaction at all,=
even though we are looking from very different angles. Work that has relev=
ance from varied approaches is so rare on the web.

why do people think paintings are someTHING at all? Things are interchang=
eable. Words/thoughts/histories are things and thus have NO particular valu=
e. Potential is a thing. What you did is gone now, it's just words. Concent=
rate not on the things but what you are DOING. Death is really not so detri=
mental if you just haven't died.

judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Eryk Salvaggio June 6 2002 01:00Reply

I'm not sure what you read, but you aren't disagreeing with me at all.

Cheers,
-e.




furtherfield wrote:

>
>
>
> Hello Eryk,
>
>
>
> I don't know. It does seem strange, almost useless arguing such a
> thing as this with you once again. We had a similar discussion about a
> year ago (I think) on this and I remember that we did not agree then
> and it does not seem will budge on our original interpretations on
> this (as you might agree, very worn out) argument. But just like you,
> I enjoy getting shifting cranium into gear and having a good chat
> about such issues every now and then. So with a warm respect for your
> position and ideas on such a thing, I will put my pennies worth into
> the glut. On an issue that probably will not be resolved until the
> market & Academia decides something must change for its own
> greedy-like intentions.
>
> What you believe is of course your own take, and it just so happens
> due to circumstance it seems that you reside in the 'painting is dead'
> camp. And it is lucky for you (and me) that we have decided not to
> explore the activity of painting and therefore are not branded, or
> stigmatized as second-rate citizens because of this. I personally feel
> a sense of regret that certain 'arts' activities have been and are
> pushed aside for the sake of new practices, I also do not trust many
> people's motives to kill something of which is not theirs to kill.
>
> For I believe that art (the act of creating) is a personal choice and
> when someone is told that they are doing something wrong or not
> relevant, especially when it is something that they enjoy, and people
> say 'ah, that's dead, long gone'. I get goose pimples all over
> (almost). On who's terms is painting dead? I am not arguing that
> painting should be saved or anything like that but what I am
> questioning is people's urgency to kill a dream, or an intimate
> function that can bring beauty or a certain poetic reasoniong to
> someone's life via a process of making art. To take that away by
> devaluing it via terms of art domination over creative choice I feel
> is wrong. All though, there could be some positive outcomes of such
> things happening for painting. For me, if people just painted outside
> of the art arena, it would give it more credence, in fact more
> value. The Art arena is yet another social construction it seems to
> seperate the valid and the invalid. This is new, so therefore better…
>
> Those who have decided to for whatever reason to pursue or partake in
> such a so called, labeled 'dead thing' must of course come to terms
> with the fact that the moving image, recent strategic shifts of net
> creativity and the academic, are holding the 'Vanguard reigns'. I do
> not feel comfortable with this 2-tier situation of market led &
> academic led control. This means that there is a type of thought
> control on what one must pursue as a creative individual or group. We
> must not forget that just because we have the privilege or advantage
> to be seen as exploring 'cutting edge' work in the western hemisphere,
> does not mean that it is a valid or right right thing to be doing.
>
> I am not an anti capitalist in respect to it being an everyday
> function or in the very real sense of survival, and of course we all
> must eat. Yet I am not happy to be told what is good and what is bad
> by people who I do not know or respect. This does not mean you of
> course. I mean higher up, the 'Thought Police', those people who for
> some reason have convinced themselves that what they say must be- the
> be and end all. It's like having a parent telling us 'You're too old
> for this now, or this is not appropriate'. And I am not a child so I
> listen to my own heart in relation to what I believe and learn from
> real experience (outside thought police perameters) whether it may
> seem misguided or not. And on that premise I can gather 'embodied
> knowledge' on a subject. Whether painting is dead is not the issue,
> it's much more to do with why people wish to say such about harsh
> things in the first place that I question.
>
> I am very interested in the variants on code as art, but that does not
> mean that my eyes are closed from appreciating a message, a concept in
> a painting just because it is not conforming to a protocol. I know
> that I will not budge you on this one Eryk, and our ideas can
> sometimes clash. But I appreciate where you are coming from
> conceptually and in respect of historical events. I knid of agree with
> a lot of what you say but have a deep doubt to trust the way things
> are panning out. So - I agree a lot, but in priciple feel alarmed. I
> have yearning of a luddite, to smash up all this computer stuff that I
> myself am using, yet enjoy the adventure of exploring new strategies
> at the same time. What a confused bunny I must be eh!
>
>
>
> marc
>
>
>
> I think "careerism" is a good catch all phrase for explaining away
> every aspect of the art world we don't like,
> but in this case I have to disagree, and I'm disagreeing based on
> a position of 1) I am not a careerist and
> 2) I believe painting is an obsolete art form.
>
> Here are the reasons I give for 2) since position 1) is arguable
> depending on who you ask. I will make clear
> that I fervently believe that _any_ form of expression is a valid
> art form. Look at the Salvaggio-Museum if
> you want money where my mouth is. I do not believe we even need to
> declare an area of art an "art form" in
> order to make it valid art. Yesterday, I was in an art supply
> store, and considered stealing the notebooks they
> leave out for people to test pens. They were beautiful
> collaborative drawings- squiggles, unicorns, calligraphy
> and multitudes of colors and random phrases- but I got nervous
> because the woman just told me my friend
> had been fired and I didn't want to be the guy who went in there
> to steal used notebooks. But I digress [that's
> really how you use the word "digress" by the way].
>
> So, I want to say something: There is Art1 and there is Art2. Art1
> [and the numbers are arbitrary] are the
> artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external expression
> of an idea or emotion or concept; but also
> deals specifically with beauty and aesthetics. This is the
> category I have dedicated the Salvaggio-Museum to,
> the idea of every day artifacts and accidental manifestations of
> inhibited creative energy.
>
> Art2 is the academic side of art, fueled by innovative ideas fused
> with innovative techniques. This is the art
> that most art museums are dedicated to and the stuff that most
> people pay for. This art is created on a
> line from cave paintings to Eduardo Kac. But because it is on a
> line, there is a need for this art to swim or
> drown. It must always be absolutely modern if it is going to catch
> us in an unexpected way. Too often, Art2
> is replaced by Art2a and Art2b; Art2a being a preoccupation with
> history and personal expression, that is,
> people who create art solely for the purpose of expressing
> continuing concepts, and Art2b consisting of
> people solely interested in innovating technology for the sake of
> art, with the concept of personal, emotional
> expression coming secondary to the "shock of the new." [Rhizome
> consists mainly of Art2b; it's only been
> recently that I have accepted that this is not an entirely bad
> thing; just not my most preferable.] I'd much
> prefer to see a union between Art2a and Art2b, which could lead us
> to Art3, which is what all of us are
> waiting for. [Last metaphor would be to look at music and
> technology: You have the Art2b music of
> Autechre; the Art2a of Annie Difranco, and the Art3 of say, Aphex
> Twin. Nothing wrong with any of
> them.]
>
> Anyway; painting as Art1 is fine. But when painting declares that
> it is Art2, Art2a, 2b or 3, we fall into
> the concern that just maybe it isn't. It is an antique as far as
> innovation is concerned and so therefore can't
> be considered in the same world. And it shouldn't be. People who
> are insulted by this concept of Art1 not
> being Art2 need to figure out why Art2 is so important to them.
> The answer, usually, is that Art2 carries
> the "scene." It is where people get paid, it is where people say
> "Hey, you're a star!" The reason for this,
> in my own opinion, anyway, is that Art1 is too embarrassed of its
> own sincerity in an ironic world. Sincerity
> is also an antique. But when the value judgements of Art2 are
> sought out for someone making Art1, it's
> just like Billy bringing his Baking Soda Volcano to the NASA
> convention. It's the wrong scope. It's a fallacy
> to assume that the larger the scale the more valid; which is why I
> can't understand why so many Art1's need
> the validation of an Art2. You paint because you love to paint,
> okay. You paint to express ideas, fine; there's
> nothing wrong with painting, poetry or good wine. But why anyone
> needs to assume that good wine is a kind
> of television is beyond me. It's confusing a Pit Bull with a
> Bulldog. Both are Dogs, but they're both very
> different kinds of dogs.
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> furtherfield wrote:
>
>> Hello Natalie,
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager
>> to dismiss one type of art/method to put another in its place.
>> The answer is that it is political and careeer led - if one
>> advertises their own practice enough by promoting that activity
>> as new, the best, better etc, in the end everyone looks in that
>> direction like frightened sheep with a self - conscious glance.
>> In a system that is led by trend it is important to have
>> scapegoats that can be cast in the realm of the past,
>> that historical trash can of what is known as obsolete. It is
>> about supply and demand - and it certainly is not about
>> philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be. All
>> products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a
>> modernist strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern
>> ideoligies. There is nothing wrong with people creating their art
>> work on their own terms but if one expects to be taken on as an
>> equal when creating an art such as painting do not expect to be
>> respected by those who rule the day via digital, installation,
>> code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names,
>> instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new
>> languages, claiming power, claiming a space in the future,
>> discounting the past as dead, the future as alive because they
>> are potentially part of that idiom. That is how things work and
>> in a world that places the delusion over humanity, what else can
>> you expect? The function contradicts their words…
>>
>>
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>> is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?
>>
>> why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not
>> philosophically something else
>>
>> why can't everybody under stand potential
>>
>> i am dead
>> …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
>>
>>
>> ————————————————————————
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Sign-up for Video Highlights
>> <http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl>
>> of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>>
>

marc garrett June 7 2002 01:00Reply

Hello Eryk,

I came to the same assumption at the end of my writing… Hence my confusio=
n.

marc







I'm not sure what you read, but you aren't disagreeing with me at all.

Cheers,
-e.




furtherfield wrote:




Hello Eryk,

I don't know. It does seem strange, almost useless arguing such a thing=
as this with you once again. We had a similar discussion about a year ago =
(I think) on this and I remember that we did not agree then and it does not=
seem will budge on our original interpretations on this (as you might agre=
e, very worn out) argument. But just like you, I enjoy getting shifting cra=
nium into gear and having a good chat about such issues every now and then.=
So with a warm respect for your position and ideas on such a thing, I will=
put my pennies worth into the glut. On an issue that probably will not be =
resolved until the market & Academia decides something must change for its =
own greedy-like intentions.

What you believe is of course your own take, and it just so happens due=
to circumstance it seems that you reside in the 'painting is dead' camp. A=
nd it is lucky for you (and me) that we have decided not to explore the act=
ivity of painting and therefore are not branded, or stigmatized as second-r=
ate citizens because of this. I personally feel a sense of regret that cert=
ain 'arts' activities have been and are pushed aside for the sake of new pr=
actices, I also do not trust many people's motives to kill something of whi=
ch is not theirs to kill.

For I believe that art (the act of creating) is a personal choice and w=
hen someone is told that they are doing something wrong or not relevant, es=
pecially when it is something that they enjoy, and people say 'ah, that's d=
ead, long gone'. I get goose pimples all over (almost). On who's terms is p=
ainting dead? I am not arguing that painting should be saved or anything li=
ke that but what I am questioning is people's urgency to kill a dream, or a=
n intimate function that can bring beauty or a certain poetic reasoniong to=
someone's life via a process of making art. To take that away by devaluing=
it via terms of art domination over creative choice I feel is wrong. All t=
hough, there could be some positive outcomes of such things happening for p=
ainting. For me, if people just painted outside of the art arena, it would =
give it more credence, in fact more value. The Art arena is yet another soc=
ial construction it seems to seperate the valid and the invalid. This is ne=
w, so therefore better…

Those who have decided to for whatever reason to pursue or partake in s=
uch a so called, labeled 'dead thing' must of course come to terms with the=
fact that the moving image, recent strategic shifts of net creativity and =
the academic, are holding the 'Vanguard reigns'. I do not feel comfortable =
with this 2-tier situation of market led & academic led control. This means=
that there is a type of thought control on what one must pursue as a creat=
ive individual or group. We must not forget that just because we have the p=
rivilege or advantage to be seen as exploring 'cutting edge' work in the we=
stern hemisphere, does not mean that it is a valid or right right thing to =
be doing.

I am not an anti capitalist in respect to it being an everyday function=
or in the very real sense of survival, and of course we all must eat. Yet =
I am not happy to be told what is good and what is bad by people who I do n=
ot know or respect. This does not mean you of course. I mean higher up, the=
'Thought Police', those people who for some reason have convinced themselv=
es that what they say must be- the be and end all. It's like having a paren=
t telling us 'You're too old for this now, or this is not appropriate'. And=
I am not a child so I listen to my own heart in relation to what I believe=
and learn from real experience (outside thought police perameters) whether=
it may seem misguided or not. And on that premise I can gather 'embodied k=
nowledge' on a subject. Whether painting is dead is not the issue, it's muc=
h more to do with why people wish to say such about harsh things in the fir=
st place that I question.

I am very interested in the variants on code as art, but that does not =
mean that my eyes are closed from appreciating a message, a concept in a pa=
inting just because it is not conforming to a protocol. I know that I will =
not budge you on this one Eryk, and our ideas can sometimes clash. But I ap=
preciate where you are coming from conceptually and in respect of historica=
l events. I knid of agree with a lot of what you say but have a deep doubt =
to trust the way things are panning out. So - I agree a lot, but in pricipl=
e feel alarmed. I have yearning of a luddite, to smash up all this computer=
stuff that I myself am using, yet enjoy the adventure of exploring new str=
ategies at the same time. What a confused bunny I must be eh!

marc


I think "careerism" is a good catch all phrase for explaining away ev=
ery aspect of the art world we don't like,
but in this case I have to disagree, and I'm disagreeing based on a p=
osition of 1) I am not a careerist and
2) I believe painting is an obsolete art form.

Here are the reasons I give for 2) since position 1) is arguable depe=
nding on who you ask. I will make clear
that I fervently believe that _any_ form of expression is a valid art=
form. Look at the Salvaggio-Museum if
you want money where my mouth is. I do not believe we even need to de=
clare an area of art an "art form" in
order to make it valid art. Yesterday, I was in an art supply store, =
and considered stealing the notebooks they
leave out for people to test pens. They were beautiful collaborative =
drawings- squiggles, unicorns, calligraphy
and multitudes of colors and random phrases- but I got nervous becaus=
e the woman just told me my friend
had been fired and I didn't want to be the guy who went in there to s=
teal used notebooks. But I digress [that's
really how you use the word "digress" by the way].

So, I want to say something: There is Art1 and there is Art2. Art1 [a=
nd the numbers are arbitrary] are the
artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external expression of a=
n idea or emotion or concept; but also
deals specifically with beauty and aesthetics. This is the category I=
have dedicated the Salvaggio-Museum to,
the idea of every day artifacts and accidental manifestations of inhi=
bited creative energy.

Art2 is the academic side of art, fueled by innovative ideas fused wi=
th innovative techniques. This is the art
that most art museums are dedicated to and the stuff that most people=
pay for. This art is created on a
line from cave paintings to Eduardo Kac. But because it is on a line,=
there is a need for this art to swim or
drown. It must always be absolutely modern if it is going to catch us=
in an unexpected way. Too often, Art2
is replaced by Art2a and Art2b; Art2a being a preoccupation with hist=
ory and personal expression, that is,
people who create art solely for the purpose of expressing continuing=
concepts, and Art2b consisting of
people solely interested in innovating technology for the sake of art=
, with the concept of personal, emotional
expression coming secondary to the "shock of the new." [Rhizome consi=
sts mainly of Art2b; it's only been
recently that I have accepted that this is not an entirely bad thing;=
just not my most preferable.] I'd much
prefer to see a union between Art2a and Art2b, which could lead us to=
Art3, which is what all of us are
waiting for. [Last metaphor would be to look at music and technology:=
You have the Art2b music of
Autechre; the Art2a of Annie Difranco, and the Art3 of say, Aphex Twi=
n. Nothing wrong with any of
them.]

Anyway; painting as Art1 is fine. But when painting declares that it =
is Art2, Art2a, 2b or 3, we fall into
the concern that just maybe it isn't. It is an antique as far as inno=
vation is concerned and so therefore can't
be considered in the same world. And it shouldn't be. People who are =
insulted by this concept of Art1 not
being Art2 need to figure out why Art2 is so important to them. The a=
nswer, usually, is that Art2 carries
the "scene." It is where people get paid, it is where people say "Hey=
, you're a star!" The reason for this,
in my own opinion, anyway, is that Art1 is too embarrassed of its own=
sincerity in an ironic world. Sincerity
is also an antique. But when the value judgements of Art2 are sought =
out for someone making Art1, it's
just like Billy bringing his Baking Soda Volcano to the NASA conventi=
on. It's the wrong scope. It's a fallacy
to assume that the larger the scale the more valid; which is why I ca=
n't understand why so many Art1's need
the validation of an Art2. You paint because you love to paint, okay.=
You paint to express ideas, fine; there's
nothing wrong with painting, poetry or good wine. But why anyone need=
s to assume that good wine is a kind
of television is beyond me. It's confusing a Pit Bull with a Bulldog.=
Both are Dogs, but they're both very
different kinds of dogs.

Cheers,
-e.







furtherfield wrote:

Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager t=
o dismiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is=
that it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practic=
e enough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the en=
d everyone looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - cons=
cious glance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scap=
egoats that can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can=
of what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certa=
inly is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to=
be. All products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a moder=
nist strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There=
is nothing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms bu=
t if one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as pa=
inting do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital,=
installation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own n=
ames, instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new lang=
uages, claiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past=
as dead, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idi=
om. That is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over hu=
manity, what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words…

marc


is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosop=
hically something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead ……………………………………………….=
…………………………………………………………………=
…………………





———————————————————————-
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

Kate Southworth June 7 2002 01:00Reply

From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:12 -0700
To: furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

Hi Eryk, and List.

I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.

Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.

The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
If we see the world as fluid, as a collection of interconnected, mutually
dependent units then the art that belongs to that world will have these
characteristics too. These units can be as small or large as we like, and
can be emotion, idea, concept, theory, experience etc. They can be pulled
(abstracted) from the 'whole', 'the system' in any way we choose. The
art that is connected with this understanding of the world seems to be
investigating ways in which units (rotten word, but can't think of an
appropriate other just now) relate to one another: how units are described.
If the whole set of categories that we have used up to now are discarded as
boundaries between categories dissolve, then constructing new categories,
that are meaningful yet fluid and able to change as necessary seems to be
the very stuff that net art, new media art (whatever the term!) is engaging
with right now.

best, Kate

Kanarinka June 7 2002 01:00Reply

>>>
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective.
It produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any
painting.
>>>

Hi folks – While I agree with some of the other statements in Kate's
message I disagree entirely with this one. While I might not call it
"beauty" i think that emphasis on balance/harmony/aesthetics in the
perception and absorption of the work by a person on the other end
(participant, audience, user) is one of the most important things about
creating art. Ignoring this is privileging the concept over the
execution, something i think that "new media/net.art/digitalia/blah" is
often guilty of because (maybe) the artists tend to be more conceptually
inclined than visually/auditorially inclined.

Just because i have a neat or original idea does not make it art. That's
what the best thing about art is – this combination of abstract and
concrete, idea and form, etc. Art can be found somewhere between
post-modern word masturbation and meaningless eye candy.

I agree that art is tool to investigate the world but i think that it is
also intimately concerned with the outcome of that investigation – the
form of the culminating performance of that investigation (the artwork
itself) and whether that can hold up as an aesthetically valid,
conceptually balanced performance/investigation/representation.




—–Original Message—–
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of Kate Southworth
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM
To: Eryk Salvaggio; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much





From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:12 -0700
To: furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

Hi Eryk, and List.

I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of
its inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the
contemporary world, but because there are too many residual notions of
creativity contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective.
It produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any
painting.

Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused
with innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for
art. Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our
contemporary world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs
new ways to describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the
redundancy of painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings
about the position of artists whose main frames of reference are
informed by residual ideologies.

The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the
solid. If we see the world as fluid, as a collection of interconnected,
mutually dependent units then the art that belongs to that world will
have these characteristics too. These units can be as small or large as
we like, and can be emotion, idea, concept, theory, experience etc.
They can be pulled (abstracted) from the 'whole', 'the system' in any
way we choose. The art that is connected with this understanding of
the world seems to be investigating ways in which units (rotten word,
but can't think of an appropriate other just now) relate to one another:
how units are described. If the whole set of categories that we have
used up to now are discarded as boundaries between categories dissolve,
then constructing new categories, that are meaningful yet fluid and able
to change as necessary seems to be the very stuff that net art, new
media art (whatever the term!) is engaging with right now.

best, Kate

Kate Southworth June 7 2002 01:00Reply

From: "Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com>
Reply-To: "Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:38:53 -0400
To: "'Kate Southworth'" <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>, "'Eryk
Salvaggio'" <eryk@maine.rr.com>, <list@rhizome.org>
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
Hi Kanarinka and List

I agree with what you're saying to an extent Kanarinka. Take a look at our
work at Glorious Ninth and, as has been said on this list before, it is very
visually and aurally orientated. But beauty as the definition of
aesthetics, beauty as the definition of art surely has been and gone. Of
course we are dealing with the visual and aural, and therefore aesthetics
plays its part. But what we define as aesthetics changes with time. Its
pointless in a way to talk about aesthetics without saying what those
aesthetics are. Contemporary aesthetics are not the same as those that
supported painting, for example. Liza Sabater Napier got tantalizingly
close to really describing contemporary aesthetics (well, netart etc.
aesthetics) in earlier posts.

best, Kate


>>>
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.
>>>

Hi folks – While I agree with some of the other statements in Kate's
message I disagree entirely with this one. While I might not call it
"beauty" i think that emphasis on balance/harmony/aesthetics in the
perception and absorption of the work by a person on the other end
(participant, audience, user) is one of the most important things about
creating art. Ignoring this is privileging the concept over the execution,
something i think that "new media/net.art/digitalia/blah" is often guilty of
because (maybe) the artists tend to be more conceptually inclined than
visually/auditorially inclined.

Just because i have a neat or original idea does not make it art. That's
what the best thing about art is – this combination of abstract and
concrete, idea and form, etc. Art can be found somewhere between post-modern
word masturbation and meaningless eye candy.

I agree that art is tool to investigate the world but i think that it is
also intimately concerned with the outcome of that investigation – the form
of the culminating performance of that investigation (the artwork itself)
and whether that can hold up as an aesthetically valid, conceptually
balanced performance/investigation/representation.



—–Original Message—–
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Kate Southworth
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM
To: Eryk Salvaggio; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much



From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:12 -0700
To: furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

Hi Eryk, and List.

I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.

Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.

The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
If we see the world as fluid, as a collection of interconnected, mutually
dependent units then the art that belongs to that world will have these
characteristics too. These units can be as small or large as we like, and
can be emotion, idea, concept, theory, experience etc. They can be pulled
(abstracted) from the 'whole', 'the system' in any way we choose. The
art that is connected with this understanding of the world seems to be
investigating ways in which units (rotten word, but can't think of an
appropriate other just now) relate to one another: how units are described.
If the whole set of categories that we have used up to now are discarded as
boundaries between categories dissolve, then constructing new categories,
that are meaningful yet fluid and able to change as necessary seems to be
the very stuff that net art, new media art (whatever the term!) is engaging
with right now.

best, Kate

Eryk Salvaggio June 7 2002 01:00Reply

Kate Southworth wrote:

> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because
> of its inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the
> contemporary world, but because there are too many residual
> notions of creativity contained within the very concept 'painting'.
> Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the
> emphasis on inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an
> obsolete perspective. It produces artefacts as redundant to the
> contemporary world as any painting.
>

I don't know what you've been reading, but we agree. But let's put it
this way: Does that mean that anyone who wants to
paint should not be allowed to?


>
>
> Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
> expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose.
> By itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.
>

My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not"
equation. "Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is. Have you been to the
salvaggio museum? http://www.salvaggio-museum.org . Maybe it's not art,
but if not, what is it?


> Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas
> fused with innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare
> essential for art.
>

That's because you are calling a poodle a chihuahua. It's an essential
for a kind of art form, not "art" in general. For example, if we took
you literally,
the Mona Lisa would not be "art" because it is not an innovative idea or
an innovative technique. Maybe it was at some point [I can't see anyone
calling it revolutionary, at any point, however] but even if it was, it
is no longer- and so you may say it is relevant as a historical
artifact- I say this is
also true about abandoned mittens, photographs of gnomes put on ebay,
etc. The point no one seems to get is that documentation and documentaries
are a kind of art. It's a western concept to say that the object painted
is not art. In the east, the essence of the object documented is what is
important.
I like to take this one step further and just present the object. This
is as much "art" as anything else. So if I believe discarded mittens are
art, I'm going
to have to believe paintings are. Otherwise we are refusing to
acknowledge the ideas set forth by most contemporary art.


> Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our
> contemporary world. That world changes, and art investigates. It
> needs new ways to describe that world. Hence, my feelings
> regarding the redundancy of painting to do the job adequately.
> Hence, my feelings about the position of artists whose main
> frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.
>

From an Art2 perspective, this is completely valid, but are you denying
that there are other perspectives on art? And are you willing
to say that they are not also valid perspectives? The major issue with
the brand of academia usually put forth on this list is that it subscribes
to the singular, technology-driven american fetishist view of art, that
is, "new is better than intelligent, thought provoking or emotional." I
should say that "new" is more likely to be confused with "intelligent
and thought provoking." I just think there is space for art to not have
to be about technology. There is also space for art to be specifically
about technology, but that's just geeky, it's the dot com bubble set
into higher modes of abstraction.

Cheers,
-e.

Plasma Studii June 7 2002 01:00Reply

Sorry. But this attitude is just too wonderful to ignore.


>I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.

Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.

Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
materials. In point of fact, it was a stick. Had I a chart of all
the obsolete ways to make things, to refer to at the time, I could
have saved myself an hour of enduring entertainment which I would
otherwise have known had no relevance to the contemporary world.


>main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies

Being "informed" can be a real bargain and a time-saver to boot!
Being informed actually depends entirely on who you are informed by,
but we generally mean buying prepackaged sets of ideas in bulk
(generally available from schools, major galleries and other fine
institutions). Buying ideas in bulk sets, rather than having to hunt
them down, one at a time for yourself save both time and money!


>The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.

She's absolutely right and I feel exactly the same way, every time I
take a dump.


judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Kate Southworth June 7 2002 01:00Reply

From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:45:48 -0700
To: Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much



Hi Eryk, and List


Kate Southworth wrote:
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.

I don't know what you've been reading, but we agree. But let's put it this
way: Does that mean that anyone who wants to
paint should not be allowed to?

I think we do.
OF COURSE people should be allowed to do what they want.



Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not" equation.
"Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is. Have you been to the
salvaggio museum? http://www.salvaggio-museum.org . Maybe it's not art, but
if not, what is it?

Well I think there is definitely an 'art or not' equation. BUT before anyone
goes all precious on me, please let me qualify that statement. Mixed up in
the art or not question is the categorisation of some cultural forms as
'high art' and others as 'popular art' (please note I'm not talking about
Mass art). In my opinion, this distinction is almost purely class based,
with some examples of 'high art' being decidedly about maintaining the
status quo, and not at all about investigating the contemporary world (at
the time they were made).

However, work that is difficult or inaccessible (aesthetically, conceptually
or theoretically) to a wider public isn't, in my opinion, to be deemed
elitist on the grounds of class. If some art is about investigating the
world, then the artefacts produced as a result of this investigation might
well be understood by only a few people who are familiar with the domain (as
in science). I really don't think that all art is concerned primarily with
communication.

I think that art, like science, is a way through which we can understand the
contemporary world, and to an extent the historical world. I think that it
is different to other forms of activity, other forms of creativity, other
forms of production. If we follow the end result of the premise that there
is no 'art or not' equation, it means a world devoid of art. I believe art
to be a most precious tool with which we can understand ourselves and our
world. It is because it is so precious that we all argue about it so much.
I hope we never resolve the conflicts, because that means its alive, and
worth arguing about. Also things are contradictory. I think that one of
the most vital approaches to contemporary life is to accept that
contradiction is inherent in everything, is part of everything.


Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.

That's because you are calling a poodle a chihuahua. It's an essential for a
kind of art form, not "art" in general. For example, if we took you
literally,
the Mona Lisa would not be "art" because it is not an innovative idea or an
innovative technique. Maybe it was at some point [I can't see anyone
calling it revolutionary, at any point, however] but even if it was, it is
no longer- and so you may say it is relevant as a historical artifact-
but of course it was revolutionary at the time it was made. If it is
understood in the context of the time and place it was produced, with
reference to the shifting relationship between artist and market then its
full significance becomes clearer.
When I'm talking about what is relevant or not in art, I mean it in the
sense of contemporary production.
Historically or nowadays, the ways that certain works and artists (also
scientists, inventors etc.) get noticed and promoted is as a result of a
number of factors - to isolate one or two of them and give them priority
over the others is, in my opinion, fatal.

I say this is
also true about abandoned mittens, photographs of gnomes put on ebay, etc.
The point no one seems to get is that documentation and documentaries
are a kind of art. It's a western concept to say that the object painted is
not art. In the east, the essence of the object documented is what is
important.
I like to take this one step further and just present the object.
but in your museum you don't just present the object. You present it
beautifully - in a serene environment. You make aesthetic, conceptual, etc.
etc. decisions regarding that object. If you were to present the object in
the sense I think you mean, wouldn't you leave it were it was? (I know its
a photographic representation, and so the object is were it was found it in
a geographic sense).

This is as much "art" as anything else. So if I believe discarded mittens
are art, I'm going
to have to believe paintings are. Otherwise we are refusing to acknowledge
the ideas set forth by most contemporary art.

Its almost the wrong argument. We were arguing whether or not painting is
an obsolete art form, not whether paintings are art or not. there is a
huge difference.


Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.

>From an Art2 perspective, this is completely valid, but are you denying that
there are other perspectives on art?

I'd like to get much more specific. To argue it through more.
I think there are a million plus perspectives on art. I just don't hear
many. let alone many that are interesting.


And are you willing
to say that they are not also valid perspectives? The major issue with the
brand of academia usually put forth on this list is that it subscribes
to the singular, technology-driven american fetishist view of art, that is,
"new is better than intelligent, thought provoking or emotional."

I agree and disagree. Without making the same mistake regarding
relinquishing the solid, with which Judson Plasma so kindly played the
advantage, I really believe that we need to get in between these
'either/or' positions, to see the spaces between pre-defined categories.

Art, creativity, aesthetics all change their meaning through history. They
are all intrinsically linked with capitalism, with its changing demands.
For example, nowadays creativity is defined as the production of innovative,
useful, flexible artefacts or services. Capitalism needs these qualities
right now, so it promotes them in art and science.


I
should say that "new" is more likely to be confused with "intelligent and
thought provoking." I just think there is space for art to not have
to be about technology. There is also space for art to be specifically about
technology, but that's just geeky, it's the dot com bubble set
into higher modes of abstraction.

I agree with you about art not being 'about' technology in the sense I think
you mean it. But art has to engage with technology - whatever form -
because even if we made art with and through no technology, we are still
living in a world dominated by technology, so we are formed and shaped (and
also form and shape) by that world.

Very best wishes

Kate

Kate Southworth June 7 2002 01:00Reply

>
>
>> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
>
> Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.

>>>Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
was written.
>
> Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.

>>> so are you reading something significant into this?

>> main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies
>
> Being "informed" can be a real bargain and a time-saver to boot!
> Being informed actually depends entirely on who you are informed by,
> but we generally mean buying prepackaged sets of ideas in bulk
> (generally available from schools, major galleries and other fine
> institutions). Buying ideas in bulk sets, rather than having to hunt
> them down, one at a time for yourself save both time and money!

>>>The emphasis in my sentence is on 'residual' not 'informed'. Residual as in
from another epoch - namely pre-capitalist.
>
>> The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
>
> She's absolutely right and I feel exactly the same way, every time I
> take a dump.
>>>asking for that one, I suppose!
>
>
>>>best, Kate
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> http://plasmastudii.org
> 223 E 10th Street
> PMB 130
> New York, NY 10003

Plasma Studii June 7 2002 01:00Reply

The markings for the posts and replies get mixed up, so I am going to
try to just re-do em for clarity.

> >> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
> >
> > Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.
>
>Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
>was written.
>
> > Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> > In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> > materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.
>
>so are you reading something significant into this?

Just that there are works (and in competitive places) that have
absolutely nothing to do with technology. They don't use modern
tools and they don't refer to the use of modern tools.

The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.

Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
applies to all.

Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
paint.


judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

christopher otto June 7 2002 01:00Reply

i think judson has a good point.

it is kind of like foucalt with all literature in the present i think
mediums are similar.

i often come up with mediums and forms as opposed to content. when i was
younger i used to add boring content to them now i just make the semiotics
of forms the content maybe.

i often get more excited about concepts than execution mainly because i
used to work +/- go out so much i had little time to make art. in my
unemployment i have found more time to work on longform projects and focus
on production leading to changing focus to painting and photography and
very little interest in net art.

this is part of the fun aspect of art which i think people are alluding
to. i always take into account how much fun it will be to do an idea or
work in a medium. for instance artornot.org came out this week - i bought
isthisartornot.com about 2months ago and decided not to do it since i
thought writing the scripts would be boring and sitting at a desk would be
less interesting than going out dancing.

wordisborn
chrisotto






On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Plasma Studii wrote:

> The markings for the posts and replies get mixed up, so I am going to
> try to just re-do em for clarity.
>
> > >> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
> > >
> > > Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.
> >
> >Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
> >was written.
> >
> > > Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> > > In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> > > materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.
> >
> >so are you reading something significant into this?
>
> Just that there are works (and in competitive places) that have
> absolutely nothing to do with technology. They don't use modern
> tools and they don't refer to the use of modern tools.
>
> The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
> effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
> is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
> as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
> Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.
>
> Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> applies to all.
>
> Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> paint.
>
>
> judson
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> http://plasmastudii.org
> 223 E 10th Street
> PMB 130
> New York, NY 10003
> + fuck
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>


"christ"! (O), pher "ot to". . .

Kate Southworth June 8 2002 01:00Reply

>
> The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
> effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
> is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
> as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
> Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.


I have to disagree here. The tools (or the technology) speak volumes.
Whilst not advocating technological determinism at all, I would argue that
contained within any technology, is the logic, language, structure, etc. of
the society/system within which it was produced. A vast amount of art is
produced through/with technology, and has been since the caves. Because
technology isn't neutral in the sense that it isn't developed in isolation
from the world, from markets, military, etc. the use of technologies in the
production of art is one of the factors which artists address and argue
about.

Painting isn't pure. It isn't produced through/with technology that is
devoid of ideology.

What I think, perhaps is more relevant to this discussion are the competing
arguments (politically motivated, of course) regarding the nature of the
so-called 'information society'. This debate, for me, contains a number of
issues around which this list has been hovering for some time.



> Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> applies to all.

I completely agree that different tools suit the artist at different times.
And as I was being purposefully provocative in my previous mail, I should
just like to make it absolutely clear here, that I would really never
advocate rules for art at all. ever.

What I'm trying to get at by saying painting as an art form is obsolete is
this:

There is an undoubted relationship between art and the system within which
it is produced.

To be ignorant of that system, and the ways in which we interact with it (as
people, as people who make art, etc.) is lazy.

The system isn't separate from us. We are part of it, and can affect it
(not so much as individuals, but collectively) as much as we are affected by
it.

The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.

I believe we need to re frame our experiences of producing art so that we
can hold on to what is valuable to us, without having to buy into the whole
creative genius package.

In the west, painting and sculpture, more than any other art forms,
culturally (not literally) contain within them those notions of genius and
creativity, of individual artist inspired by god, by life, to create works
of art, masterpieces. This is my main reason for claiming painting as an
art form to be obsolete. It is these notions that are obsolete. I am not
sure if they can be separated from painting, hence the leap to painting as
obsolete art form.


>
> Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> paint.

This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to be
a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
Is it just a hobby then?

very best wishes,
Kate

Muserna Muserna June 8 2002 01:00Reply

> christopherotto <cotto1@gl.umbc.edu> ecrit:
> i thought writing the scripts would be boring and sitting at a desk would be
> less interesting than going out dancing.

Do you Salsa? I need a partner.

Darn scripting bores me too, I get ants in my pants and next thing I know I
have my dancing shoes on and I'm shaking my ass wildly in the village. -you
might've noticed me with my paint splattered scripting shoes.

–muserna

,_, ,_, ,_, ,_, ,_,
/| | /| | /| | /| | /| |
,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___,
/|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___|
|/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
v.._.|| |i.v_.v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._
"Sometimes dead is better." - Pet Semetary
http://www.mycemetery.com/pet

Muserna Muserna June 8 2002 01:00Reply

> Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com> ecrit:
>
> This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
> working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to be
> a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
> seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
> Is it just a hobby then?


Dance I said! Get up and boogie!! What? You don't have a boogie-down tape
from last summers napped mp3s? Hell DL some new ones, or I'll burn you my
boogie-down cd if you like.

No seriously, I have "inside days", where I don't see light (no windows, no
metaphors either) and all I do is sit in front of my computer, eating,
drinking, and farting about. And when I've felt like I've had too many of
those types of days, and I know it when I begin to hallucinate and loose my
depth perception, I take then next day and leave in the morning and stay out
till night or until I can face sitting back at my computer again. Those are
my "outside days".

Gardening is good, hobby, art is a hobby, we're all tinkering
thinkers/non-thinkers. John Cage was into mushrooms, he went mushroom crazy.
I can't remember if he chose to make music because it was the next word in
the dictionary after the word mushrooms or vice versa.

-muserna

,_, ,_, ,_, ,_, ,_,
/| | /| | /| | /| | /| |
,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___, ,__|| |___,
/|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___| /|___ ___|
|/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/ |/___/| |__/
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
|| | || | || | || | || |
v.._.|| |i.v_.v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._v.._.|| |i.v_._
"Sometimes dead is better." - Pet Semetary
http://www.mycemetery.com/pet

Eryk Salvaggio June 8 2002 01:00Reply

Kate Southworth wrote:

>
>The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
>without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
>spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
>


Why?


-e.

marc garrett June 8 2002 01:00Reply

I don't reject anything that is what makes me an artist…I close my eyes to
any concepts. I will think about them and even use them. Whether they are
termed as dead or alive, I use what ever it takes to procure my idea and
intention. If one closes off options then they paint themselves and into a
corner. (scuze the pun)

marc

>
>
> Kate Southworth wrote:
>
> >
> >The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful
objects
> >without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
> >spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
> >
>
>
> Why?
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> + fuck
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>

marc garrett June 8 2002 01:00Reply

Hi there,


> I have to disagree here. The tools (or the technology) speak volumes.
> Whilst not advocating technological determinism at all, I would argue that
> contained within any technology, is the logic, language, structure, etc.
of
> the society/system within which it was produced. A vast amount of art is
> produced through/with technology, and has been since the caves. Because
> technology isn't neutral in the sense that it isn't developed in isolation
> from the world, from markets, military, etc. the use of technologies in
the
> production of art is one of the factors which artists address and argue
> about.

I agree that tools change the style of what one creates. I agree that it
would not be a good idea to advocate determinism via the use of technology.
Yet we see it happening all the time, a lot of net artists (not all) have
been boasted how great they are - and now pushing coding as the new thing
for the arts. Personally if I create music it is art, if I write it is art,
if I draw it is art, if I put poetry on the streets it is art, if I deface
posters it is art, if I make film it is art. Even marketing the art is art.
And certain business strategies can be seen as art. The medium can be a
distraction from the message(s) - if there is no message, then that is art
being seen by protocol of the medium itself. That's fair enough but I find
that sort of thing pretty slack.

>
> Painting isn't pure. It isn't produced through/with technology that is
> devoid of ideology.
>
> What I think, perhaps is more relevant to this discussion are the
competing
> arguments (politically motivated, of course) regarding the nature of the
> so-called 'information society'. This debate, for me, contains a number
of
> issues around which this list has been hovering for some time.

I agree with your notion on 'information society'. It is obvious to me
(probably to you also) that information is a freedom that many are fighting
to explore freely currently. It is political and it is critical. Many
governments are keen to present other information to their citizens that
many free thinking types can see are lies. The Internet has been great for
forming debates questioning issues such as this globally. Contradicting the
information that is being shoved down people's throats. The so called
revolution has happened in relation to the Internet, it might not be exactly
what everyone expected but it certainly has scared many organizations who
would prefer not to be challenged for their inadequate and inhumane
behavior. Digital hooliganism, some of the decent hackers have played a very
important part in pushing technology in a direction that puts many
exploiting agencies ob edge. There are various conceptual digital artists,
Heath Bunting for instance - who has actively taken it upon themselves to
explore these areas. He makes technology a more social event by offering the
facility for the many. Who enjoy the choice to use cheap technology as a
function, make your own computers - setup your networks. That is his art -
and that is the poetry in his work, that is the beauty in his work, the
message is in the function.

> > Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> > a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> > some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> > different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> > applies to all.
> I completely agree that different tools suit the artist at different
times.

I kind of disagree here - it is the academia and the market place that
decides what suits who. Not the artists. Artists, just like actors - are a
ubiquitous creature. Redesigning themselves to adapt to the need of academic
thought and the market place. In this case Net Artists have taken the bait.
Let's be very truthful here, I bet there are many artists on this list who
used to paint. What is so great about technology is that many people have
moved into the realm of creative thought/activity via the use of technology.
Now that is brilliant, it blows apart the cannon that so many art groups
advocate to justify their supposed lineage via college education. This means
that anyone can make art on their own terms - now that is revolutuionary…

> And as I was being purposefully provocative in my previous mail, I should
> just like to make it absolutely clear here, that I would really never
> advocate rules for art at all. ever.

fair enough…

> What I'm trying to get at by saying painting as an art form is obsolete is
> this:
>
> There is an undoubted relationship between art and the system within which
> it is produced.
>
> To be ignorant of that system, and the ways in which we interact with it
(as
> people, as people who make art, etc.) is lazy.

This dictates a notion of elitism to me, if someone wants to make art on
their own terms this does not make them lazy. What is lazy is the
presumption that everyone needs to be like oneself, or do I mean
conservatism. If everyone used the same materials, had the same haircut,
wore the same dark sun glasses, wore the same poloneck jumper. I would have
to leave this planet very quickly becuase the place would be extremely
boring. I am glad there are painters, digital artists - who gives a shit
whether they are dealing with the same issues or protocol or reasoning. What
system are you refering to? Do you mean society, their own home lives, do
you mean that they are uneducated? Do you mean that they are old fashoined?
Do you mean that they have their own circumstance and situation that does
not apply to the contenporary rules of computer networking? I'm a digital
artist and anarchist - the kind of people i believe whom are lazy those who
for some reason believe their own press or the press that they have been
given - the college histories and myths that have been fed. Intellectual
snobbery by x students who have not really left college yet, still using
that spoon fed baby language. Life is not that easy and people reflect this
fact and I value this kind of thing. There are enough Net Artists now its
getting tedius almost.

>
> The system isn't separate from us. We are part of it, and can affect it
> (not so much as individuals, but collectively) as much as we are affected
by
> it.
>
> The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful
objects
> without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
> spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.

mmm - this worries me slightly. Why are you so keen on people not rejecting
what you dislike? The psychology here smells of determinism even though you
said that this was not your stance earlier in the message.

>
> I believe we need to re frame our experiences of producing art so that we
> can hold on to what is valuable to us, without having to buy into the
whole
> creative genius package.

I agree here. Everyone has genius within them. Always have done. But what if
that someone is a painter? In your world they would be extricated.

> In the west, painting and sculpture, more than any other art forms,
> culturally (not literally) contain within them those notions of genius and
> creativity, of individual artist inspired by god, by life, to create works
> of art, masterpieces. This is my main reason for claiming painting as an
> art form to be obsolete. It is these notions that are obsolete. I am not
> sure if they can be separated from painting, hence the leap to painting as
> obsolete art form.

So you want to delete a whole art form because you thin that they have
common link that you. Yourself do not think is relevant. have been
influenced by big subjects 'inspired by god, by life' So if you are not
influenced by life what are you influenced by? Your arguments are not
realistic because they do not take life into account, that is precisely what
is in the way of your terms.

> > Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> > eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> > computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> > paint.
>
> This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
> working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to
be
> a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
> seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
> Is it just a hobby then?

This makes me want to change all that I have said in my e-mail to you so
don't get too heavy with me for I see different side too your mind now. Your
humanity exudes an essence that no one can ignore in this last bit. Art to
me is exactly all the things you said above except a hobby, it is a way of
life, it is a way of existing, it is a way of hearing and seeing, it is
about exploring and feeling, it is intuitive and playful, it is stupid and
it is intelligent, it is vulnerable, it is angry, it is obsolete.

marc garrett

marc garrett June 8 2002 01:00Reply

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to muchI agree here but with a =
shift - "art or not" & "Is it art?" could be more obsolete than painting is=
even…

marc

My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not" equation.=
"Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is.

Plasma Studii June 9 2002 01:00Reply

>tools

HOWDY! Kate and other Rhizoids,

Kate, I think we just fundamentally disagree then. But I see
disagreement as a good thing. (unlike Nazis, the FBI and several
Texans with shotguns) But here's why…


This brings us back to what I was saying originally in reply to the
"I'm dead" post. That one measure of the quality of a work is that
you can approach it from more angles. Marc's take was entirely
different than mine but that's the cool part. That's what made it
interesting to read/respond to.


So much by us computer geeks, really only appeals to like-minded
computer geeks. plenty of art (esp in the last 50 yrs) really only
works under one standard (no matter which standard that is, none is
superior) and communicates nothing or disappointment to all but a
select audience. That, to me, is the stuff that didn't work, that we
can discard and try something else.


I love Cocteau flicks but have no interest in finding out about the
guy or learning where he's coming from. I'm sure someone could
analyze the heck out of them but to me it's more exciting to see them
as inexplicable images that come out of some guy's head. What I
personally like though is really of very little importance, but how
many very specific things are there for very different people to like
is important. The act of observing itself, alters that object
observed (a sub-atomic phenomenon, hit it with a photon and it
reacts); we can ONLY see by avoiding seeing too closely.

True of jokes (which is why I like em so much) and why analyses of
Duchamp means somebody missed it. The guy stuck a toilet in an art
show. That's funny. End of story. We can embellish it all we want
with theory but those are OUR additions. This was one joke by a funny
guy. He wasn't ALWAYS joking but he certainly wasn't ALWAYS so
serious. (muserna wisely suggests butt wiggling)


judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Plasma Studii June 9 2002 01:00Reply

More "howdies" to all,

I really dig what Eryk has been saying. The idea that
(super-simplified for brevity) East - depiction is the incorporation
of the beauty of object, West - the depiction itself is where the
beauty lies, Salvaggio Museum - isn't the object itself beautiful,
regardless of depiction. And even though I always like his points,
we always disagree because he seems to be describing the way things
could work ideally and I'm saying that's just never what ends up
happening. Two camps.

For example, the mittens. He may really dig those lost-found
mittens. And it makes sense why even. But it just ends up most of
us get bored. Somebody lost some gloves. Oh well. Cool that he can
be so enthusiastic and probably we can all learn from his example but
there are 20 other factors to contend with. I PERSONALLY, may not
like the mittens but he's allowing folks to approach them from a
variety of angles. So, in the end, as art, it still seems
worthwhile. I may not buy tickets but would encourage others who
might like the mittens to.


But MAYBE we are all talking about context. MAYBE context is
something Kate gets from a select culture, for Eryk, context seems to
have no bearing on the value of the object and I see the object is
only meaningful if it excels in more than one context. Maybe.
Though off-hand we probably see the value in all 3, we are really
only interested in pursuing one.

judson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Eryk Salvaggio June 10 2002 01:00Reply

Plasma Studii wrote:

> And even though I always like his points, we always disagree because
> he seems to be describing the way things could work ideally and I'm
> saying that's just never what ends up happening. Two camps.


Without apologies, let me just ask, since theory is essentially an
impractical and lofty excersize, unconcerned with
reality, [remember, theory is where artists do art as "responses" to
other art!] doesn't it make sense that we at the
very least use all this brain power towards idealistic ends? I mean
while we're all busy building imaginary constructs
why not make them pretty and have all the dead come back to life when
we're done? This is theory, why even
pretend it has anything to do with "what ends up happening?" Theory is
just a matter of "how do I spin, contradict,
or improve upon this idea?" And there is no right or wrong, there's only
boring and interesting, which are subjective.
So if I am boring as far as theory goes, that's fine, one might also
vote republican or prefer pad thai over bi bim bap,
[is that really it? I'm thinking of a korean dish, lettuce, rice and
tofu with a spicy sauce? Anyone know?] but if I
am going to spend my life in make believe, I'm not going to worry about
what Baudrillard has to say about the
impossibility of sincerity because I can just be in aggressive denial
and that means he is wrong. I mean, and that's
if you agree with him.


> For example, the mittens. He may really dig those lost-found
> mittens. And it makes sense why even. But it just ends up most of us
> get bored.


Well, the mittens aren't my idea actually; they're the work of an art
school girl I met a few years ago and never
kept in touch with but I did always love the project. And I think the
people who get bored with this stuff are
artists, "the cultured" and that makes sense and is probably fine,
someone's gotta be holding the door for progress,
I suppose. But I can't help but think that even in "progressive art"
there is a movement towards this idea of
all the world as art with or without anyone saying so. You see every
"progressive" movement basically widening
the definitions of art- how about we call a spade a spade, and just let
it go? Maybe it gets boring, I don't know.
It's not like after Fluxus no one did still life anymore. But the
majority of the modern era has seemed to be a
huge argument for just abolishing the word art and getting on with our
lives, ie, a modern civilization with art on
all the back channels. Like Iceland, where artists design the power plants.


> Somebody lost some gloves. Oh well. Cool that he can be so
> enthusiastic and probably we can all learn from his example but there
> are 20 other factors to contend with. I PERSONALLY, may not like the
> mittens but he's allowing folks to approach them from a variety of
> angles. So, in the end, as art, it still seems worthwhile. I may not
> buy tickets but would encourage others who might like the mittens to.


Somebody lost mittens, somebody makes a piece of universally appreciated
art, what's the difference? And yes,
I'm serious.

-e.

Plasma Studii June 10 2002 01:00Reply

> let me just ask, since theory is essentially an impractical and
>lofty excersize, unconcerned with
>reality, [remember, theory is where artists do art as "responses" to
>other art!]

what's to remember? i never thought that in the first place, but
your point is still the same.

>doesn't it make sense that we at the
>very least use all this brain power towards idealistic ends? I mean
>while we're all busy building imaginary constructs
>why not make them pretty and have all the dead come back to life
>when we're done?

>bi bim bap,
>[is that really it? I'm thinking of a korean dish, lettuce, rice and
>tofu with a spicy sauce? Anyone know?]

yup, though i have no idea how to spell it. think it's anglicized "bibim bop".

>but if I
>am going to spend my life in make believe, I'm not going to worry
>about what Baudrillard has to say about the
>impossibility of sincerity because I can just be in aggressive
>denial and that means he is wrong. I mean, and that's
>if you agree with him.

I agree with you a lot more. In fact, I probably wouldn't shoot YOU.

I totally agree that IN THEORY, if one denies what they experience
than why not at least make whatever we replace it with as ideal as
imaginable. But then the electric bill comes and eventually they
turn off your gas or you get hungry and have to change that flat
tire, so you can get to the nearest store. That's stuff idealism
doesn't cover.


>Well, the mittens aren't my idea actually; they're the work of an
>art school girl I met a few years ago and never
>kept in touch with but I did always love the project. And I think
>the people who get bored with this stuff are
>artists, "the cultured"

i think a lot of plumbers and garbage collectors would actually. the
"cultured" artists would get excited.

>and that makes sense and is probably fine, someone's gotta be
>holding the door for progress,

i doubt you'd disagree but that word "progress" is sure relative.

>I suppose. But I can't help but think that even in "progressive art"
>there is a movement towards this idea of
>all the world as art with or without anyone saying so. You see every
>"progressive" movement basically widening
>the definitions of art-

which is really why i am suspicious of "progress". i say narrow the
definition. it's so wide it's gotten silly. Make art difficult
again! Enough of thought-prevoking art, we gave it a shot for half a
century but it's still just ugly. i wanna feel moved. If anybody
wants to think, they can buy a book.

> how about we call a spade a spade, and just let it go?

cool by me, but then that's where we diverge. It'd be hard for the
big museums to get funding to pay their staff (and the folks who are
writing those applications) for the promotion of "neat stuff". You
might say "screw the museums, let em go belly up" but there's a lot
of people who are hustling double time to keep that from happening
just yet. Buying time while they try to make that transition.
People both directly (museum staff) and indirectly (tenured art prof
at some college in the sticks).

They'd have to come up with a better word to replace "art"
everywhere. And then by doing so we are just back to square one but
now "ixhjewfb" has the ridiculously wide definition.

>Maybe it gets boring, I don't know.
>It's not like after Fluxus no one did still life anymore.

i say dump "Fluxus" too. dump any definitions of art movements even
before dumping the word "art". Historians can refer to dates.
Dividing painting (to use the example from this conversation) from
computer art is useless. Someone recently tried to tell me that
manipulating high speed frequencies (color) is a different genre than
that of low speed ones (sound). People are fencing themselves in
behind their own imaginary barricades.

>Somebody lost mittens, somebody makes a piece of universally
>appreciated art, what's the difference? And yes, I'm serious.

thank goodness. Because I am with you on that one.

But since "universally appreciated" is more theoretical, I would
answer there is no difference. so either the mittens or the art
better demonstrate some unique skill to (perhaps even have character)

judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Kate Southworth June 10 2002 01:00Reply

Hi Eryk and List

Apologies for not getting back sooner - I was gardening all weekend!

In a previous post I wrote:
>> The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful objects
>> without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
>> spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
>>

Eryk replied:
> Why?


My response is this:

It has to be rejected because it represents a skewed and restricted view of
the artist and the production and consumption of art.

I'm calling for a radical aesthetics.

1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the relationship
between the production and consumption of artistic activity.

2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
of art rather than the theory of art.

3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.

4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
world in all its complexity, can be better understood.

5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
co-exist.

6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of developing
an alternative model.

7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
significant as any other form of knowledge production.

8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect of
the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
different forms of art there are different political and ethical
perspectives being reflected.

9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that through
the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the artist
(and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding of
the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.

10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and between
artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.

11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.

Liza Sabater June 10 2002 01:00Reply

You've been gardening some psychotropics I assume ;-+

God, give it to Kate Southworth to get me out of lurking mode …

I'll get back to you on this one –I'm busy homeschooling. But one
nugget out there –the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
through a friendship.
It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.

Ok. I gotta go. Monster #2 is asking for his baba.

Topic: Neobaroque Aesthetics.
Talk amongst yourselves.

xoxo
Liza

>
>My response is this:
>
>It has to be rejected because it represents a skewed and restricted view of
>the artist and the production and consumption of art.
>
>I'm calling for a radical aesthetics.
>
>1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
>of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the relationship
>between the production and consumption of artistic activity.
>
>2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
>of art rather than the theory of art.
>
>3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
>understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.
>
>4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
>producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
>world in all its complexity, can be better understood.
>
>5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
>and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
>co-exist.
>
>6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
>explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
>production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of developing
>an alternative model.
>
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>
>8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect of
>the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
>methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
>different forms of art there are different political and ethical
>perspectives being reflected.
>
>9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
>something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that through
>the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the artist
>(and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding of
>the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.
>
>10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and between
>artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.
>
>11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
>aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
>which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.

Max Herman June 10 2002 01:00Reply

In a message dated 6/10/2002 5:07:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
office@plasmastudii.org writes:


> That's stuff idealism
> doesn't cover.

Idealistic economy is why we have what good we have now, and why we'll have
something better if we do.

Felix

++

Kate Southworth June 10 2002 01:00Reply

Liza Sabater-Napier6/10/02 14:29liza@potatoland.org wrote:

>–the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
> new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
> promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
> through a friendship.
> It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
> easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
> a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.
>

Liza, I would be really interested to know more about this when you've got
time.

best wishes,
Kate

joseph mcelroy June 10 2002 01:00Reply

Quoting Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>:


> My response is this:
>

> 1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
> of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the
> relationship
> between the production and consumption of artistic activity.
>

Lordy, Lordy, another service provider is born.

> 2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
> of art rather than the theory of art.

theory only to enhance and support the service, NOT TO BE THE SERVICE.

>
> 3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
> understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.
>

Yes - No - you use such pretty words, but I am glad for it.

> 4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
> producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
> world in all its complexity, can be better understood.

NOT UNDERSTOOD - this contradicts 2 and 3 - you mean MODIFIED AND ENHANCED
(which implies understanding but stands for action).

>
> 5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
> and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
> co-exist.

Teacher learns from student. Who is the teacher? Bravo!

>
> 6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
> explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
> production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of
> developing
> an alternative model.

Yes - understand without accepting - non referential.

>
> 7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
> significant as any other form of knowledge production.

Not just knowledge production, activity resulting from knowledge produced.

>
> 8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect
> of
> the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
> methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
> different forms of art there are different political and ethical
> perspectives being reflected.

Service tools appropriate to the service

>
> 9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
> something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that
> through
> the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the
> artist
> (and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding
> of
> the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.
>

Yes - the experienced service provider gets better over time and forms closer
relationships with clients (audience)

> 10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and
> between
> artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.

OK

>
> 11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
> aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
> which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.

Use appropriate means for delivering service, regardless of source.

Can I sign you up as the official Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] Radical
Aestheticist?



Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]

Kanarinka June 10 2002 01:00Reply

>>>
7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>>>

YEEHAW on #7 especially!

Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?

I'll join the movement… let's be a radical branch of NEEN!


(joke)

Liza Sabater June 10 2002 01:00Reply

> >>>
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>>>>
>
>YEEHAW on #7 especially!
>
>Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
>informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?
>
>I'll join the movement… let's be a radical branch of NEEN!
>
>(joke)
>


I thought we agreed on artware!

Eryk Salvaggio June 10 2002 01:00Reply

Me and Max decided on electrometier.

-e.



Liza Sabater-Napier wrote:

>> >>>
>> 7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>> significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>> >>>
>>
>> YEEHAW on #7 especially!
>>
>> Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
>> informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?
>>
>> I'll join the movement… let's be a radical branch of NEEN!
>
>> (joke)
>
>
>
> I thought we agreed on artware!
>

Max Herman June 11 2002 01:00Reply

In a message dated 6/10/2002 10:29:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
eryk@maine.rr.com writes:


> Me and Max decided on electrometier.
>
> -e.

Kate Southworth June 11 2002 01:00Reply

Pet Name6/8/02 15:56muserna@muserna.org wrote:

>
> Dance I said! Get up and boogie!! What? You don't have a boogie-down tape
> from last summers napped mp3s? Hell DL some new ones, or I'll burn you my
> boogie-down cd if you like.

I've followed your recommendation.

If I can't dance then I don't want to be part of this digital revolution.

best wishes, Kate

Kate Southworth June 11 2002 01:00Reply

Hi Marc, List

furtherfield6/9/02 2:23info@furtherfield.org wrote a whole lot of things
that I believe raise really important points. I would like to come back to
them when I've a little more time if that's OK.

very best wishes

Kate

Kate Southworth June 11 2002 01:00Reply

Plasma Studii6/9/02 21:05office@plasmastudii.org wrote:


>
> So much by us computer geeks, really only appeals to like-minded
> computer geeks. plenty of art (esp in the last 50 yrs) really only
> works under one standard (no matter which standard that is, none is
> superior) and communicates nothing or disappointment to all but a
> select audience. That, to me, is the stuff that didn't work, that we
> can discard and try something else.

I think these points are really at the heart of things. So, if its OK with
you, I should just like to pull them around a bit.
Anyone can be creative.

Creativity, as is generally understood nowadays, is the production of
innovative, novel, useful artefacts or services.

A person can be personally creative (P), making art works, cakes, flower
beds in such a way that it is new to them.

A person can be historically creative (H), making art works, cakes, flower
beds in such a way that it is new for all of human kind.

If H Creativity occurs then, necessarily, P Creativity occurs also.
but, P Creativity can occur without H Creativity occurring.


An artist can be either P or H creative or both.
A scientist can be either P or H creative or both.

For H creativity to take place, it has to be measured in some way, usually
by a panel of experts. They are assessing whether a contribution to
knowledge has been made.

In academia these experts can be Journal referees. In art these experts can
be curators, critics, theorists.


This system has operated relatively successfully for quite some time.
Your point regarding
> plenty of art (esp in the last 50 yrs) really only
> works under one standard (no matter which standard that is, none is
> superior)
seems to be an accurate description of this system in action.

you go on to say
>and communicates nothing or disappointment to all but a
> select audience.

like other areas of knowledge production, only a relatively few people are
engaged in specific areas of art practice.

So does it makes sense that only a few people will be able to 'understand'
specific areas of art as only a few people would be able to understand a
scientific paper as it was written for peers?



>That, to me, is the stuff that didn't work, that we
> can discard and try something else.

Is it true that the framework within which art is judged as having made a
contribution to knowledge, is limited.

Artists have very little real power in terms of assessing whether new work
by peers has made a contribution to knowledge.

The fact that art is judged as an autonomous artefact means that its
relation with its producer(s) and consumers(s) is disregarded when judging
whether it has made a contribution to knowledge.

If art makes a contribution to knowledge, and only a few people are able to
understand it, is there a role for artists making different versions of
their work, for different audiences - or is that what different cultural
forms are anyway?


very best, Kate

Kate Southworth June 11 2002 01:00Reply

Hi Kanarinka & List

Kanarinka6/10/02 18:02kanarinka@ikatun.com wrote

> Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
> informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?

Its a combination. Its partly my own approach, but contains elements that I
have not managed to bring about yet. It has been formed partly by debating
these issues on Rhizome, and by engaging with other artists' work, so to
that extent it is describing what is happening right now.

A movement? perhaps something looser than a movement. Perhaps the
recognition of and describing of a number of elements that can be put
together in numerous ways, and a recognition of and describing of the system
that comes into being through the interconnectedness and interdependence of
these elements.

best wishes, Kate

Plasma Studii June 12 2002 01:00Reply

>electrometier.

>>>>A radical aesthetics

>>>NEEN!

>>artware!

The Nebraska Register calls it "simply breath-taking!"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

portholeaccel June 12 2002 01:00Reply

–0-604865611-1023862013=:48510
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



Note: forwarded message attached.



———————————
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
–0-604865611-1023862013=:48510
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P>
<P>&nbsp; Note: forwarded message attached. </P><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://launch.yahoo.com">LAUNCH</a> - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
–0-604865611-1023862013=:48510–

Plasma Studii June 12 2002 01:00Reply

>So, if its OK with
>you, I should just like to pull them around a bit.

that's what it's all about! Pull around as much as possible.
May the words that finally escape my head be the world's salt water taffy.
I'm honored.


But I have this impulsive habit, that I always have questions…

>If art makes a contribution to knowledge,

i hope not

>and only a few people are able to
>understand it, is there a role for artists making different versions of
>their work, for different audiences - or is that what different cultural
>forms are anyway?

Sounds as if you are implying that the idea behind a work is
something separate from how it is communicated. Is that right? But
what an artist decides to communicate (or not) is entirely
fundamental to their point of view. Rothko doesn't use still lives
as metaphors for mortality and couldn't translate his "look at what
paint can do" experiments to studies of tables of beef and lemon
peels. One work, no versions, more varied audiences getting
different things (besides just "beats me") looking at the same object.

But the thing I am arguing for (and seems like you too but we are
wording it differently). Art that speaks on several levels (often
opposing views) is hard to do. But that's why it takes years to
develop proficiency. The more years we keep trying, the deeper the
levels we eventually attain. Hence, programmers (loosely defined)
may take advantage of the "art can be anything" idea but that doesn't
make their stuff appeal to anyone but the same programmers it did
before.

So, in addressing your question, if "only a few people are able to
understand it", the work's not finished yet, try again. (But
"understanding" is the key term, it's more like just "getting some
stranger's interest", since literally "understanding" is hardly
necessary). But this is not what's hip. To be chic in contemporary
art, requires very selective appeal to a chosen few and attains the
ultimate level of pretentious gibberish to most. "Net.art" often
just follows this trend, sniffing at it's heels like an eager pet.
But if that's how it behaves, we can't expect great wisdom to
suddenly pour out, the web will take time to grow up into that.
Babies are not generally great poets but we encourage them to keep at
it. The net is still a teenager really. (which might be a reason to
call this stuff "neen")

Rather than better art watchdogs (the curators, critics, etc. you
describe), the only "real power" we have, is choosing how we as
individuals see those watchdogs The watchdogs have as much
significance as each artist gives them. They can be worshipped (as
in Charles Manson or the military, where somebody else's word even
out-rules our own, even to the point of killing folks we don't know),
you can define yourself in terms of fighting against them (as in
punk, which was actually originally a sneaky corporate marketing
invention that worked incredibly) or you can be oblivious to them
(not deny that these watchdogs exist but that they are just doing
some job, probably pays better than pumping gas, but whatever works,
man). We are given a huge range.

I'd just like to see more work that offers things to people who may
disagree with the artists/their art watchdogs (curators, critics,
theorists, …). Work that has an individual character, rather than
a club membership card. Work that the artists/watchdogs themselves
may even disagree with on certain levels. Art that is not TAKEN
personally, what the artist thinks they themselves ARE, rather GIVEN
as a multi-faceted personality, who we'd ENJOY meeting.

judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003