Corporate [Art]Rule[s]

> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>

> What if a piece could
> show the possibility of corporate responsibility,

Euugh, pass the sick bag. Ivan

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>
> I disagree that any corporation showing art in the first place would
> be
> unwilling to show work of a "pornographic" or "political" nature based
> on
> some idea of "diminishing corporate share value". It makes more sense
> to me-

Depends upon the mission of the corporation, since some corporations share value might increase due to publicity that enhances their mission (think Playboy, etc).


> considering that these people are humans, not stock tickers- that they
> want
> the art to be a catalyst for ideas as opposed to debates or arguments.

They are humans subject to the responsibilities they assume due to their roles in a corporation. To remain within the corporation, they have to meet their responsibilities. Destroying share value will get them fired.

>
> Simply because art is not political or pornographic does not mean it
> can't
> be "dangerous". In fact, pornographic and political art is the least
> dangerous art there is, in any environment. The problem is that many
> artists
> are blind to what that they could actually endanger with their work,
> for
> better or for ill. A corporate environment that is actually interested
> in
> ideas is one of the better places where art can "make a difference"
> today-

Only (for the most part) small companies work with new ideas, large corporations (who can afford to buy art) look for successful ideas they can capitalize upon.

> particularly art that is not overwrought with confrontational conceit
> about
> "the evils of corporate rule". [Endangerment for ill.] What if a piece
> could
> show the possibility of corporate responsibility, could show some kind
> of
> opening for action or provide some sort of alternative to a
> detrimental
> methodology? [Endangerment for better.]

Exactly. I (and we) work on this.

http://www.electrichands.com/sketches/plan.pdf

joseph


>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "joseph mcelroy" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:37 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
>
>
> > I agree with Eryk on this one. With the legal responsibility that
> corporations have to shareholders to not diminish the corporate share
> value,
> which can happen easily with offending artwork, officers are not in a
> position to take chances and it would be "unethical" for them to do
> so. And
> large institutions placing restrictions on the content of artwork it
> sponsors is nothing new. Do you think Mike could have painted a bunch
> of
> satan worshipers and fornicators on the Sistine (other than showing
> them go
> to hell of course;)? Creating worthwhile art within restrictions is a
> challenge, not an obstacle.
> >
> > joseph
> >
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > > And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may
> want
> > > to
> > > participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior
> because
> > > it
> > > might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is
> only
> > > relevant if it offends buisiness people?
> > >
> > > Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show
> pornography
> > > or
> > > political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> > > Whether
> > > we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't
> know
> > > why we
> > > have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> > > Shouldn't we
> > > be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> > > With the
> > > way the government is going and has been going, corporate
> sponsorship
> > > may be
> > > the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> > > corporations
> > > insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> > > buisiness
> > > practice should be not only allowed but funded by those
> corporations
> > > whose
> > > sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> > > institutions
> > > for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> > > compromise."
> > >
> > > Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > > > instrument there.
> > > > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > > > them.
> > > > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > > > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > > > content in advance?
> > > > best
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > — Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > > > following.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > —– Original Message —–
> > > > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > > > that
> > > > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > > > movers
> > > > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > > > entertainment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > > > our work in such a
> > > > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > > > being seen. And because
> > > > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > > > that is so corrupt.
> > > > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > > > conversation- we talk about
> > > > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > > > was easier. And while we
> > > > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > > > that, as well, because
> > > > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > > > by actualization.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > > > "quality" based on things they
> > > > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > > > in the art world. As it
> > > > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > > > money based solely on an
> > > > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > > > reject the institutions
> > > > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > > > complaints about them."
> > > > >
> > > > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is
> that
> > > of
> > > the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in
> > > any
> > > way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We
> have
> > > taken
> > > the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> > > carry out
> > > your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> > > observe
> > > this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> > > security
> > > when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> > > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

it seems like "political" has become a narrowly defined term here - by accepting the way it was used in the original call (i would assume it was meant to discourage references to US electoral politics/partisanship), though eryk offered alternatives to the binary logic that are no less "political," i.e. seeking to engage in some kind relationship involving persuasion. i don't mean this to sound corrective - i'm sure everyone's aware of the semantic use of "politics." but the insidious demotion of the word (in the US) to the vulgar and dishonest has given far too much power to oppressive ideologies that rely on anti-intellectualism and populist rhetoric, while discouraging civic involvement. i mean, when saying that a political debate is "just about politics" is used as a negative - what the hell does that mean? or "get the government out of our lives" - shouldn't it be "get our lives into the government?"
now i'm just ranting about linguistics (sorry) - but it does matter.
defining the context of what is "political" or "pornographic" would be of interest - as many corporations thrive on images of "radicality" that many might consider to be both of those terms. there's always regulating structures (and counter structures) for culture, but determining the power afforded to some is worth considering, maybe. joseph's idea of subversion has a history of practice (from muralists like Ben Shaun and Rivera), but eryk's got a point, subversion (reaction) is easily just appropriated by the media machine it tries to oppose. positive proposals are too, as PR "greenwashing" illustrates. both seem necessary to me.