Random thought on how to share net art (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)

> If is hard to explain to people what is the purpose of net art, this
> probably has to do with your definition of purpose. Art has no purpose.
> The artist does –and so the audience or (in the case of interactive
> net art) the user. The question, then, should have been: Why is it so
> hard for friends and family to see MY PURPOSE in net art?

Art does have a purpose. However, it is a slippery one. Having said that,
it should also be kept in mind that the reasons why people become artists
are diverse and this contributes to why it is hard to explain to people the
purpose of art in general. However, our conversation is more specifically
dealing with net-art.

Perhaps the main reason why the purpose of art is hard to see is because
historically it is based on Kant's idea of disinterestedness. The Kantian
idea was crucial in modernism and came into attack by political art. Much
conceptual/performance art in the seventies was invested in questioning the
object of art ala Kant.

So with all this, the purpose of art is hard to see because it is developed
on an elitist position – bourgeois. Kant considered that in order to pass
a judgment of taste people needed to be disinterested. This meant that the
role of the object was that of purposiveness without a specific purpose.
And here is where the slipperiness started… 1780s.


> Once you have identified that then the next question FOR YOU TO ANSWER
> is, how do I express my purpose through the artwork itself. Or putting
> it differently, how does the artwork's structure express my purpose?
>
> If your purpose is to communicate, how is that structured into the
> artwork?
> If your purpose is to narrate, how is that structured into the artwork?
> If your purpose is to explore creativity, how is that structured into
> the artwork?

A person big on semantics would consider the above propositions to be the
same. All deal with communicative strategies.

> I have said this to people in the net art scene in NYC and I am going
> to repeat it here: Test your work with children and the art
> "incogniscenti". If they cannot be engaged by your work, you may want
> to go back to the drawing board. This is not about finding the lowest
> common denominator –nobody would look at ''Waiting Room" and call it
> crass or commercial. This has to do with clarity of purpose. If there
> is no clarity, no matter how many pages of explanatory text you tack on
> the project, it is still a failure. After all, Art should not come with
> a FAQ or rule book.
>
> Which leads me to the idea of 'selling'.
>
> Contrary to popular opinion it is possible to sell net/digital art.
> Actually, anything can be sold because selling has never involved
> objects. Selling has always involved ATTACHMENT TO A NEED. In the
> everyday realm of the imaginary we need 'things', 'ideas', 'people'. We
> turn our emotions into objects and thus externalize what has always
> been an internal process. It has always been like this –it is not a
> Madison Avenue contrivance but an observation that goes back to sources
> such as the Tao Te Ching.

Selling does involve forms – this is very different from objects. So in a
way we agree here.

>
> So the question regarding net art is, what are you selling?
>
> In the case of software and net art it is not an object what we are
> selling, it is an experience. Software and Net Art (or artware in my
> lexicon) is purely about desire –what you are bringing to the world is
> a space in which desire can be unabashedly unleashed. Look at Ultima,
> Everquest or The Sims —they are revolutionizing the way people
> commodify not just things but experiences.

I am not arguing about whether net art can sell or not, what I am pointing
out is that at this moment in time it does not have major exposure in the
world at large and because of this it is hard to see a purpose in it by most
people. I use the issue of selling because most people look at the world in
capitalist terms, even when it is not so obvious. This is the reason why in
my e-mail to Manik I quoted Matt Perry and his ideas on labor as DNA for the
world.

As Pall Thayer stated previously, yes net art can be sold.

> My advice to all is not to focus on the art 'object' when talking about
> net art. I have learned through the years that the best way to talk
> about net art is about the experience –what is it that people can
> expect, actually do and in the process effect through the piece. Which
> takes me to the definition of net art –just because it is deployed
> over the Internet it is not necessarily net art. If it can be deployed
> elsewhere (such as a cd-rom or dvd) call it something else.

This is a whole separate debate that would split people up fairly quickly.
Many people (including myself) would say that net art is net art because it
is inherently dependent on internet technologies to function as art.

>Case in
> point: M Napier is a painter, sculptor, net and software artist. You do
> yourselves a disservice by your attachment to one definition.
>

At least the last bio I read from him, he considers himself an artist
working exclusively on the net. I think this is a very specific label:
http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/napier.shtml


I think most artists do not label themselves these days. However, as we are
dealing with net-art on this thread, the dilemma of explaining what net-art
is to people is what is being emphasized and may sound misleading. I think
most rhizomers who have contributed to this thread would agree that after
explaining that one is an artist, the question that follows is "what type of
art do you do?" While the answers to this next question may vary, it most
likely involves some sort of explanation about net-art as being part of ones
practice. This one could of course be combined with other media such as
photography, painting etcetera. But since we are focusing on net art's
purpose here, it is important to keep this in mind and should not conclude
that everyone who makes net-art is going around strictly calling themselves
net-artists.

> There is much to learn by people's lack of understanding to one's work.
> Sometimes the best criticism comes from those unexpected responses,
> like laughter in the middle of a dramatic scene. Just because you have
> a sense of what is your purpose it does not mean that it is being
> communicated. And sometimes it means that we have to invent new rules
> for expressing our selves.
>

I agree with this, which is why as I stated earlier on this thread that the
point is to communicate. I think Ruth Catlow agreed with this as well…
sentient beings welcomed.
:)

Eduardo Navas

Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.

However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by prefixing art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question that has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo correctly pointed out)

Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however, contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and the Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer appeal to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and audience consupmtion becomes specific.

The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire for the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of the way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called art.

In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely on being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the motivation of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations. Net.Art as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community and the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the conformation of the community through the experience of the work.

Hi there,

> Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.

I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a personal
attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage in
ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
insecurities.

I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it does
fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a 'no
get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one who
is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which is a
shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting points,
places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of each
others own habitual frameworks.

When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being. Their
own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to a
degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching others
and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going through
the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not aware of
taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out of
the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That wisdom
may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or through
email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such factors.
Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others and
not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.

The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art, made
me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in the
UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects that I
have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what the
actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.


> However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by prefixing
art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question that
has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
correctly pointed out)
>
> Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and the
Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer appeal
to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
audience consupmtion becomes specific.

Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously tried
to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking Party,
we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but also
had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone was
seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down on
the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be a
part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop them,
it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in their
creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the aim
of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new contacts
with people outside of their own static circles, learned that institutional
types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It just
has to be done more, examples have to be declared.

Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all that
took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what is
called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know that
there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay isolationist, as
there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change that
such a relational step demands.

Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already by
them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it to
the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.

> The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire for
the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of the
way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
art.

What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has been
handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes history.
Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of becoming
administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts; it
broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of its
own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the already
built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
podiums with different faces.

There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something is
termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to unlearn
them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own (supposedly
enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that we
as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare, full
of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented to
mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.

The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality is an
insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its varied
consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do and
will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of historians,
cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons rather
than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists and
anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and expecting
to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is psychologically
unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for net
artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
ourselves.

Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside them
as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types moaning
about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that is
waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we play,
so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then. Create
our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting for
the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what you
want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to take
on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but ones
that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we all
have to endure.

Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather than by
administered hierarchical protocol.

> In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely on
being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the motivation
of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations. Net.Art
as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community and
the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
conformation of the community through the experience of the work.

I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business blueprints,
anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of containment
that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough to
hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing strategies
that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that ignore
(ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.

marc

>
> + 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
>

—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
(Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


> Hi there,
>
> > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
> masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
>
> I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
> gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
> was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> necessarily in its manner.
<–snip–>

I think Greg might be referring to Lisa Sabater's comment from the renamed
rhizome-rare post by Lewis Lacook:

"I am not talking here about 'statement of purpose'. That is an academic
masturbatory tool. I'm talking here about why do you make art? What is
art's purpose in YOUR LIFE?"

Which is the beginning of this thread:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread

Hi Eduardo,

You've caught me at an unusually insync time.

I will use your <–snip–> so my own workings out after what you have said
can be seen…

> Hi there,
>
> > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
> masturbatory tool' although I appreciate a probing investigation or a
> perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
>
> I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
> gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
> was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> necessarily in its manner.
<–snip–><–your snip–>

I think Greg might be referring to Lisa Sabater's comment from the renamed
rhizome-rare post by Lewis Lacook:

"I am not talking here about 'statement of purpose'. That is an academic
masturbatory tool. I'm talking here about why do you make art? What is
art's purpose in YOUR LIFE?"

Which is the beginning of this thread:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread

There's so many
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
against any frames and bourgeois rules.Deleuse&Guattari "personal
attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed after
that book.Is that enough?
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
(Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


> Hi there,
>
> > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
> masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
>
> I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
> gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
> was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a personal
> attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
> forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage
in
> ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> insecurities.
>
> I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it does
> fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a 'no
> get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one
who
> is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which is
a
> shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting points,
> places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of each
> others own habitual frameworks.
>
> When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
> list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being. Their
> own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to a
> degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
others
> and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going through
> the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not aware
of
> taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out of
> the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
wisdom
> may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or through
> email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such factors.
> Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others
and
> not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
>
> The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art, made
> me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in the
> UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects that
I
> have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what
the
> actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
>
>
> > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
prefixing
> art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
that
> has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
> correctly pointed out)
> >
> > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and
the
> Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
> atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
appeal
> to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
> audience consupmtion becomes specific.
>
> Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously tried
> to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking Party,
> we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
also
> had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone
was
> seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down
on
> the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
> patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be a
> part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop them,
> it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in their
> creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the aim
> of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
contacts
> with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
institutional
> types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It
just
> has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
>
> Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
that
> took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what
is
> called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
> ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know
that
> there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay isolationist,
as
> there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
> world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change
that
> such a relational step demands.
>
> Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
> those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already
by
> them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it
to
> the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
> elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
>
> > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
> Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire
for
> the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of the
> way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
> art.
>
> What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
> possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has been
> handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes history.
> Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of becoming
> administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts;
it
> broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of
its
> own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
already
> built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> podiums with different faces.
>
> There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something
is
> termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
> down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to unlearn
> them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
(supposedly
> enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that we
> as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare,
full
> of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented to
> mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
>
> The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality is
an
> insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
> perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its varied
> consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do
and
> will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of historians,
> cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons rather
> than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists
and
> anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
expecting
> to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is psychologically
> unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for net
> artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> ourselves.
>
> Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
> forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside
them
> as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types moaning
> about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that is
> waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
play,
> so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then. Create
> our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting
for
> the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what
you
> want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
> already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to take
> on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but ones
> that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we
all
> have to endure.
>
> Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
> able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather than
by
> administered hierarchical protocol.
>
> > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely
on
> being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the motivation
> of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
Net.Art
> as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community and
> the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
>
> I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
blueprints,
> anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
containment
> that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough to
> hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing strategies
> that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that ignore
> (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
>
> marc
>
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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
>

—– Original Message —–
From: "manik" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:44 AM
Subject: Fw: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
(Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


> There's so many
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> against any frames and bourgeois rules.Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed after
> that book.Is that enough?
> MANIK
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
> (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
>
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
academic
> > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> >
> > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for
me,
> > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
thought
> > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
personal
> > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
> > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage
> in
> > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > insecurities.
> >
> > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
does
> > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a
'no
> > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one
> who
> > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which
is
> a
> > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
points,
> > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
each
> > others own habitual frameworks.
> >
> > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
> > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
Their
> > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to
a
> > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
> others
> > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
through
> > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
aware
> of
> > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out
of
> > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> wisdom
> > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
through
> > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
factors.
> > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others
> and
> > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> >
> > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art,
made
> > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in
the
> > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
that
> I
> > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what
> the
> > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> >
> >
> > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> prefixing
> > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
> that
> > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
> > correctly pointed out)
> > >
> > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and
> the
> > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
> > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> appeal
> > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
> > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> >
> > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
tried
> > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
Party,
> > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
> also
> > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone
> was
> > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down
> on
> > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
> > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be
a
> > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
them,
> > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
their
> > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the
aim
> > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> contacts
> > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> institutional
> > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It
> just
> > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> >
> > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
> that
> > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what
> is
> > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
> > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know
> that
> > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
isolationist,
> as
> > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
> > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change
> that
> > such a relational step demands.
> >
> > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
> > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already
> by
> > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it
> to
> > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
> > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> >
> > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
> > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire
> for
> > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of
the
> > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
> > art.
> >
> > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
> > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has
been
> > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
history.
> > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
becoming
> > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts;
> it
> > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of
> its
> > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> already
> > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> > podiums with different faces.
> >
> > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something
> is
> > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
> > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
unlearn
> > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> (supposedly
> > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that
we
> > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare,
> full
> > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented
to
> > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> >
> > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality
is
> an
> > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
> > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
varied
> > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do
> and
> > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
historians,
> > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
rather
> > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists
> and
> > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> expecting
> > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
psychologically
> > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for
net
> > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
> > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside
> them
> > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
moaning
> > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that
is
> > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
> play,
> > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
Create
> > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting
> for
> > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what
> you
> > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
> > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to
take
> > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
ones
> > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we
> all
> > have to endure.
> >
> > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
> > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
than
> by
> > administered hierarchical protocol.
> >
> > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely
> on
> > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
motivation
> > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> Net.Art
> > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community
and
> > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> >
> > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> blueprints,
> > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> containment
> > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough
to
> > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
strategies
> > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
ignore
> > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> >
> > marc
> >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>

Hi Manik,


> There's so many
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> against any frames and bourgeois rules.

This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a list - not
specifically this list.

Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed after
> that book.Is that enough?
> MANIK

I agree,

Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes are
genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to or
agree with it.

marc


>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
academic
> > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> >
> > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for
me,
> > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
thought
> > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
personal
> > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
> > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage
> in
> > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > insecurities.
> >
> > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
does
> > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a
'no
> > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one
> who
> > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which
is
> a
> > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
points,
> > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
each
> > others own habitual frameworks.
> >
> > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
> > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
Their
> > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to
a
> > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
> others
> > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
through
> > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
aware
> of
> > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out
of
> > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> wisdom
> > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
through
> > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
factors.
> > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others
> and
> > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> >
> > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art,
made
> > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in
the
> > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
that
> I
> > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what
> the
> > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> >
> >
> > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> prefixing
> > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
> that
> > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
> > correctly pointed out)
> > >
> > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and
> the
> > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
> > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> appeal
> > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
> > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> >
> > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
tried
> > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
Party,
> > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
> also
> > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone
> was
> > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down
> on
> > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
> > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be
a
> > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
them,
> > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
their
> > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the
aim
> > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> contacts
> > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> institutional
> > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It
> just
> > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> >
> > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
> that
> > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what
> is
> > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
> > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know
> that
> > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
isolationist,
> as
> > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
> > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change
> that
> > such a relational step demands.
> >
> > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
> > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already
> by
> > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it
> to
> > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
> > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> >
> > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
> > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire
> for
> > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of
the
> > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
> > art.
> >
> > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
> > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has
been
> > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
history.
> > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
becoming
> > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts;
> it
> > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of
> its
> > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> already
> > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> > podiums with different faces.
> >
> > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something
> is
> > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
> > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
unlearn
> > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> (supposedly
> > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that
we
> > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare,
> full
> > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented
to
> > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> >
> > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality
is
> an
> > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
> > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
varied
> > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do
> and
> > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
historians,
> > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
rather
> > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists
> and
> > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> expecting
> > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
psychologically
> > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for
net
> > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
> > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside
> them
> > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
moaning
> > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that
is
> > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
> play,
> > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
Create
> > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting
> for
> > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what
> you
> > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
> > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to
take
> > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
ones
> > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we
> all
> > have to endure.
> >
> > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
> > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
than
> by
> > administered hierarchical protocol.
> >
> > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely
> on
> > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
motivation
> > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> Net.Art
> > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community
and
> > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> >
> > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> blueprints,
> > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> containment
> > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough
to
> > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
strategies
> > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
ignore
> > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> >
> > marc
> >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>

You are not insignificant voayer to make balance between intentions.It's so
like politicians.You know that Eduardo's intention are so imbecile
that,finally we must forget all that humiliating idea about"share
net.(ART)with friends&FBI…
Peace
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
(Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


> Hi Manik,
>
>
> > There's so many
> >
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> > onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> > against any frames and bourgeois rules.
>
> This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a list -
not
> specifically this list.
>
> Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> > attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> > emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed
after
> > that book.Is that enough?
> > MANIK
>
> I agree,
>
> Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
> Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes are
> genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to or
> agree with it.
>
> marc
>
>
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
> academic
> > > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> > > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> > >
> > > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for
> me,
> > > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
> thought
> > > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
> personal
> > > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all
currently
> > > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to
engage
> > in
> > > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > > insecurities.
> > >
> > > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> > > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
> does
> > > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a
> 'no
> > > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator,
one
> > who
> > > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which
> is
> > a
> > > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
> points,
> > > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
> each
> > > others own habitual frameworks.
> > >
> > > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on
a
> > > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
> Their
> > > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say
to
> a
> > > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> > > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
> > others
> > > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
> through
> > > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
> aware
> > of
> > > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> > > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> > > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For
out
> of
> > > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> > wisdom
> > > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
> through
> > > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
> factors.
> > > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to
others
> > and
> > > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> > >
> > > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art,
> made
> > > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in
> the
> > > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
> that
> > I
> > > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> > > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus
what
> > the
> > > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> > >
> > >
> > > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> > prefixing
> > > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
> > that
> > > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as
Eduardo
> > > correctly pointed out)
> > > >
> > > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> > > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer
and
> > the
> > > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to
the
> > > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> > appeal
> > > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations
and
> > > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> > >
> > > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
> tried
> > > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
> Party,
> > > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
> > also
> > > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well.
Everyone
> > was
> > > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking
down
> > on
> > > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive
vessels,
> > > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to
be
> a
> > > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
> them,
> > > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> > > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
> their
> > > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the
> aim
> > > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> > contacts
> > > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> > institutional
> > > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is.
It
> > just
> > > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> > >
> > > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
> > that
> > > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by
what
> > is
> > > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and
selfish
> > > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I
know
> > that
> > > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
> isolationist,
> > as
> > > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of
the
> > > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional
change
> > that
> > > such a relational step demands.
> > >
> > > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it.
And
> > > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported
already
> > by
> > > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take
it
> > to
> > > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially
non
> > > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> > >
> > > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> > > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by
her
> > > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors
desire
> > for
> > > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of
> the
> > > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be
called
> > > art.
> > >
> > > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for
without
> > > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has
> been
> > > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
> history.
> > > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
> becoming
> > > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider
contexts;
> > it
> > > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside
of
> > its
> > > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> > already
> > > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> > > podiums with different faces.
> > >
> > > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether
something
> > is
> > > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies &
break
> > > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
> unlearn
> > > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> > > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> > (supposedly
> > > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge
that
> we
> > > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like
Shakespeare,
> > full
> > > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and
reinvented
> to
> > > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> > >
> > > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality
> is
> > an
> > > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old
canons,
> > > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
> varied
> > > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and
do
> > and
> > > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
> historians,
> > > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
> rather
> > > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by
artists
> > and
> > > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> > expecting
> > > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
> psychologically
> > > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for
> net
> > > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> > > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to
by
> > > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but
alongside
> > them
> > > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
> moaning
> > > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that
> is
> > > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
> > play,
> > > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
> Create
> > > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop
waiting
> > for
> > > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is
what
> > you
> > > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is
done
> > > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to
> take
> > > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
> ones
> > > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that
we
> > all
> > > have to endure.
> > >
> > > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are
functionally
> > > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
> than
> > by
> > > administered hierarchical protocol.
> > >
> > > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not
rely
> > on
> > > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
> motivation
> > > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> > Net.Art
> > > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community
> and
> > > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> > > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> > >
> > > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> > > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> > blueprints,
> > > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> > containment
> > > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough
> to
> > > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> > > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
> strategies
> > > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
> ignore
> > > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> > >
> > > marc
> > >
> > > >
> > > > + 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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
>

Hi Manik,

I appreciate your worries about the FBI, what I am keen to create is place
where people who have not had the same advantages as those who have via
institutions - can make and use net art. I do not see anything wrong with
this intention…

Art is political, whether it be an individual in a studio creating their
work in an isolated situation, or a group forming a web site on the net.
Virtual is not as 'virtual' as some would like to think.

It is political to create, to use one's own imagination, to think, to act
upon it, to try and change things…

Each act has an effect - so one has to think what that action is doing,
hopefully it does what one wants.

marc


> You are not insignificant voayer to make balance between intentions.It's
so
> like politicians.You know that Eduardo's intention are so imbecile
> that,finally we must forget all that humiliating idea about"share
> net.(ART)with friends&FBI…
> Peace
> MANIK
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
> (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
>
>
> > Hi Manik,
> >
> >
> > > There's so many
> > >
> >
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> > > onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> > > against any frames and bourgeois rules.
> >
> > This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a list -
> not
> > specifically this list.
> >
> > Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> > > attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> > > emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed
> after
> > > that book.Is that enough?
> > > MANIK
> >
> > I agree,
> >
> > Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
> > Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes are
> > genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to or
> > agree with it.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
> > academic
> > > > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or
a
> > > > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> > > >
> > > > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant
for
> > me,
> > > > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
> > thought
> > > > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > > > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
> > personal
> > > > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all
> currently
> > > > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to
> engage
> > > in
> > > > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > > > insecurities.
> > > >
> > > > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as
thoughtful
> > > > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
> > does
> > > > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into
a
> > 'no
> > > > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator,
> one
> > > who
> > > > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand.
Which
> > is
> > > a
> > > > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
> > points,
> > > > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
> > each
> > > > others own habitual frameworks.
> > > >
> > > > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other
on
> a
> > > > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
> > Their
> > > > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say
> to
> > a
> > > > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our
own
> > > > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially
reaching
> > > others
> > > > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
> > through
> > > > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
> > aware
> > > of
> > > > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is
an
> > > > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in
whatever
> > > > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For
> out
> > of
> > > > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> > > wisdom
> > > > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
> > through
> > > > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
> > factors.
> > > > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to
> others
> > > and
> > > > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> > > >
> > > > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net
art,
> > made
> > > > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate
in
> > the
> > > > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
> > that
> > > I
> > > > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context
and
> > > > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus
> what
> > > the
> > > > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> > > prefixing
> > > > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the
question
> > > that
> > > > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as
> Eduardo
> > > > correctly pointed out)
> > > > >
> > > > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is
however,
> > > > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer
> and
> > > the
> > > > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to
> the
> > > > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> > > appeal
> > > > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations
> and
> > > > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
> > tried
> > > > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
> > Party,
> > > > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects
but
> > > also
> > > > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well.
> Everyone
> > > was
> > > > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking
> down
> > > on
> > > > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive
> vessels,
> > > > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to
> be
> > a
> > > > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
> > them,
> > > > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > > > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked
for
> > > > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
> > their
> > > > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with
the
> > aim
> > > > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> > > contacts
> > > > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> > > institutional
> > > > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is.
> It
> > > just
> > > > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> > > >
> > > > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for
all
> > > that
> > > > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by
> what
> > > is
> > > > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and
> selfish
> > > > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I
> know
> > > that
> > > > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
> > isolationist,
> > > as
> > > > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of
> the
> > > > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional
> change
> > > that
> > > > such a relational step demands.
> > > >
> > > > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > > > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it.
> And
> > > > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported
> already
> > > by
> > > > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to
take
> it
> > > to
> > > > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > > > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially
> non
> > > > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> > > >
> > > > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this
relationship
> > > > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by
> her
> > > > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors
> desire
> > > for
> > > > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional
of
> > the
> > > > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > > > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be
> called
> > > > art.
> > > >
> > > > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for
> without
> > > > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that
has
> > been
> > > > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
> > history.
> > > > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
> > becoming
> > > > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider
> contexts;
> > > it
> > > > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside
> of
> > > its
> > > > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> > > already
> > > > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The
same
> > > > podiums with different faces.
> > > >
> > > > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether
> something
> > > is
> > > > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies &
> break
> > > > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
> > unlearn
> > > > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation
to
> > > > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> > > (supposedly
> > > > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge
> that
> > we
> > > > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like
> Shakespeare,
> > > full
> > > > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and
> reinvented
> > to
> > > > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> > > >
> > > > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of
quality
> > is
> > > an
> > > > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old
> canons,
> > > > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
> > varied
> > > > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and
> do
> > > and
> > > > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
> > historians,
> > > > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
> > rather
> > > > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by
> artists
> > > and
> > > > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> > > expecting
> > > > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
> > psychologically
> > > > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go
for
> > net
> > > > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to
institutions
> > > > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > > > ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed
to
> by
> > > > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but
> alongside
> > > them
> > > > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
> > moaning
> > > > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power
that
> > is
> > > > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how
we
> > > play,
> > > > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
> > Create
> > > > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop
> waiting
> > > for
> > > > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is
> what
> > > you
> > > > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is
> done
> > > > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided
to
> > take
> > > > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
> > ones
> > > > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that
> we
> > > all
> > > > have to endure.
> > > >
> > > > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are
> functionally
> > > > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
> > than
> > > by
> > > > administered hierarchical protocol.
> > > >
> > > > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not
> rely
> > > on
> > > > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
> > motivation
> > > > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> > > Net.Art
> > > > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the
community
> > and
> > > > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > > > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and
the
> > > > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow
their
> > > > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> > > blueprints,
> > > > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> > > containment
> > > > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > > > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good
enough
> > to
> > > > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > > > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > > > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set
out -
> > > > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > > > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
> > strategies
> > > > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
> > ignore
> > > > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> > > >
> > > > marc
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > + 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > + 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>

Nice,soft flux.Forget F.B.I,it's not your level.Please say hallo to Edy
boy.Should I call him Edy Dear,Edy sweat hart,Edy pusy…(worm regards to
M.Python).
COLATERAL DAMAGE MAKER WITH BILL CLINTON&COM.
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
(Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


> Hi Manik,
>
> I appreciate your worries about the FBI, what I am keen to create is place
> where people who have not had the same advantages as those who have via
> institutions - can make and use net art. I do not see anything wrong with
> this intention…
>
> Art is political, whether it be an individual in a studio creating their
> work in an isolated situation, or a group forming a web site on the net.
> Virtual is not as 'virtual' as some would like to think.
>
> It is political to create, to use one's own imagination, to think, to act
> upon it, to try and change things…
>
> Each act has an effect - so one has to think what that action is doing,
> hopefully it does what one wants.
>
> marc
>
>
> > You are not insignificant voayer to make balance between intentions.It's
> so
> > like politicians.You know that Eduardo's intention are so imbecile
> > that,finally we must forget all that humiliating idea about"share
> > net.(ART)with friends&FBI…
> > Peace
> > MANIK
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art
> > (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Manik,
> > >
> > >
> > > > There's so many
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> > > > onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is
strictly
> > > > against any frames and bourgeois rules.
> > >
> > > This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a
list -
> > not
> > > specifically this list.
> > >
> > > Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> > > > attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> > > > emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed
> > after
> > > > that book.Is that enough?
> > > > MANIK
> > >
> > > I agree,
> > >
> > > Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
> > > Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes
are
> > > genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to
or
> > > agree with it.
> > >
> > > marc
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
> > > academic
> > > > > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation
or
> a
> > > > > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant
> for
> > > me,
> > > > > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
> > > thought
> > > > > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > > > > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
> > > personal
> > > > > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all
> > currently
> > > > > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to
> > engage
> > > > in
> > > > > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > > > > insecurities.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as
> thoughtful
> > > > > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when
it
> > > does
> > > > > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes
into
> a
> > > 'no
> > > > > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the
perpetrator,
> > one
> > > > who
> > > > > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand.
> Which
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
> > > points,
> > > > > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside
of
> > > each
> > > > > others own habitual frameworks.
> > > > >
> > > > > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each
other
> on
> > a
> > > > > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of
being.
> > > Their
> > > > > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we
say
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our
> own
> > > > > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially
> reaching
> > > > others
> > > > > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
> > > through
> > > > > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is
not
> > > aware
> > > > of
> > > > > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation
is
> an
> > > > > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in
> whatever
> > > > > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long.
For
> > out
> > > of
> > > > > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom.
That
> > > > wisdom
> > > > > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
> > > through
> > > > > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
> > > factors.
> > > > > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to
> > others
> > > > and
> > > > > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net
> art,
> > > made
> > > > > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council
estate
> in
> > > the
> > > > > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the
projects
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context
> and
> > > > > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> > > > prefixing
> > > > > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the
> question
> > > > that
> > > > > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as
> > Eduardo
> > > > > correctly pointed out)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is
> however,
> > > > > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the
viewer
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value
to
> > the
> > > > > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no
longer
> > > > appeal
> > > > > to these conditions that the investigation into artists
motivations
> > and
> > > > > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has
consciously
> > > tried
> > > > > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield
Networking
> > > Party,
> > > > > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects
> but
> > > > also
> > > > > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well.
> > Everyone
> > > > was
> > > > > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium,
looking
> > down
> > > > on
> > > > > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive
> > vessels,
> > > > > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed
to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not
stop
> > > them,
> > > > > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > > > > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked
> for
> > > > > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring
in
> > > their
> > > > > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with
> the
> > > aim
> > > > > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> > > > contacts
> > > > > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> > > > institutional
> > > > > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider
is.
> > It
> > > > just
> > > > > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for
> all
> > > > that
> > > > > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously
by
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and
> > selfish
> > > > > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I
> > know
> > > > that
> > > > > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
> > > isolationist,
> > > > as
> > > > > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest
of
> > the
> > > > > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional
> > change
> > > > that
> > > > > such a relational step demands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are
not
> > > > > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of
it.
> > And
> > > > > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported
> > already
> > > > by
> > > > > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to
> take
> > it
> > > > to
> > > > > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an
converted
> > > > > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed &
potentially
> > non
> > > > > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this
> relationship
> > > > > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare
by
> > her
> > > > > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors
> > desire
> > > > for
> > > > > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is
expositional
> of
> > > the
> > > > > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production
and
> > > > > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be
> > called
> > > > > art.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for
> > without
> > > > > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that
> has
> > > been
> > > > > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
> > > history.
> > > > > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
> > > becoming
> > > > > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider
> > contexts;
> > > > it
> > > > > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language
outside
> > of
> > > > its
> > > > > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change
the
> > > > already
> > > > > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The
> same
> > > > > podiums with different faces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether
> > something
> > > > is
> > > > > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies &
> > break
> > > > > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
> > > unlearn
> > > > > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in
relation
> to
> > > > > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> > > > (supposedly
> > > > > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like
> > Shakespeare,
> > > > full
> > > > > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and
> > reinvented
> > > to
> > > > > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of
> quality
> > > is
> > > > an
> > > > > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old
> > canons,
> > > > > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and
its
> > > varied
> > > > > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can
and
> > do
> > > > and
> > > > > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
> > > historians,
> > > > > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
> > > rather
> > > > > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by
> > artists
> > > > and
> > > > > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> > > > expecting
> > > > > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
> > > psychologically
> > > > > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go
> for
> > > net
> > > > > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to
> institutions
> > > > > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do
it
> > > > > ourselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed
> to
> > by
> > > > > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but
> > alongside
> > > > them
> > > > > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
> > > moaning
> > > > > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power
> that
> > > is
> > > > > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of
how
> we
> > > > play,
> > > > > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control
then.
> > > Create
> > > > > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that
is
> > what
> > > > you
> > > > > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork
is
> > done
> > > > > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided
> to
> > > take
> > > > > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions
but
> > > ones
> > > > > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates
that
> > we
> > > > all
> > > > > have to endure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are
> > functionally
> > > > > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs,
rather
> > > than
> > > > by
> > > > > administered hierarchical protocol.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does
not
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
> > > motivation
> > > > > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and
aspirations.
> > > > Net.Art
> > > > > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the
> community
> > > and
> > > > > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on
the
> > > > > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and
> the
> > > > > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow
> their
> > > > > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> > > > blueprints,
> > > > > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> > > > containment
> > > > > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art
from
> > > > > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good
> enough
> > > to
> > > > > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net
art
> > > > > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life
and
> > > > > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set
> out -
> > > > > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > > > > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
> > > strategies
> > > > > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world
that
> > > ignore
> > > > > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> > > > >
> > > > > marc
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > + 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > + 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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
>