. community —

Historically Significant Imitations

Simply put; I think Carlo has a problem that a piece of work that is highly
derivitive and possibly an imitation of his original piece is in the
artbase, which is supposed to be reserved for "historically significant"
works of internet art. How can an imitation be historically relevant?

But this is an interesting conceptual question, as well, in that it also
raises some issues concerning authorship. For example, 01010101010101.org's
archive of hell.com, could that go into the artbase?

Cheers,
-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
To: <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>; <rachel@rhizome.org>
Cc: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Does the artbase have an historicization function?


> Dear Rachel,
>
> >>> you seemed to be comparing your work to someone else's. Reading your
> posts I am more confused. You don't like a project that was accepted into
> the artbase?
>
> I'm not comparing my work to someone else's. The fact is that TS's work is
> the SAME I did 2 years ago and the problem is that ArtBase listed it.
> There isn't a duty to know my 2001 work (even if it passed through the
list)
> but once this thing has been emphasized, I think artbase people have to
pay
> attention because this fact hides two key issues : memory and authorship.
>
> I just want to defend my work. It's not possible to historicize a work
> already done by another artist 2 years before.
> Simple and Clear.
>
> cz
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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
>

Comments

Rachel Greene July 3 2003 14:27Reply

To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's work
uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
emotional range.

But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't think
that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a work.
Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by different
hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
(After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de Kooning
to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out Eryk,
online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have had
to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
(Lialina's Agatha Appears).

Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece in
dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you see my
point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that there
is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.

Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes work
valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need to
respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
Scarpino's project.

I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.


>
> Simply put; I think Carlo has a problem that a piece of work that is
> highly
> derivitive and possibly an imitation of his original piece is in the
> artbase, which is supposed to be reserved for "historically significant"
> works of internet art. How can an imitation be historically relevant?
>
> But this is an interesting conceptual question, as well, in that it also
> raises some issues concerning authorship. For example,
> 01010101010101.org's
> archive of hell.com, could that go into the artbase?
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
> To: <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>; <rachel@rhizome.org>
> Cc: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Does the artbase have an historicization
> function?
>
>
>> Dear Rachel,
>>
>> >>> you seemed to be comparing your work to someone else's. Reading your
>> posts I am more confused. You don't like a project that was accepted
>> into
>> the artbase?
>>
>> I'm not comparing my work to someone else's. The fact is that TS's work
>> is
>> the SAME I did 2 years ago and the problem is that ArtBase listed it.
>> There isn't a duty to know my 2001 work (even if it passed through the
> list)
>> but once this thing has been emphasized, I think artbase people have to
> pay
>> attention because this fact hides two key issues : memory and
>> authorship.
>>
>> I just want to defend my work. It's not possible to historicize a work
>> already done by another artist 2 years before.
>> Simple and Clear.
>>
>> cz
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> 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
>>
>

carlo zanni July 3 2003 16:09Reply

Hi Rachel,
I perfectly understand , that's your opinion.

this is what i did (not only the colored version):
http://www.zanni.org/pagine/menu12twc2.htm
(two years ago, a week or two after that colored first version)

and this is TS work: http://www.rhizome.org/artbase/14018/

words and words … plagiarism: but they are the same.
(01 with hell ?, it's a different thing, Rauschenberg? it's a different
thing again..)


TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem is
that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization function,
accepted it.
So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk, change
1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a new
work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and that's
the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks, songs,
poetries and so on.) are so important today .

Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.

so thank you for your time Rachel,

all the best,
carlo zanni

"As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
Take your time, hurry up
The choice is your, don't be late
Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"

come as you are, nirvana





—– Original Message —–
From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
<rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations


> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's work
> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
> emotional range.
>
> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't think
> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a work.
> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
> conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
> church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by different
> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de Kooning
> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out Eryk,
> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have had
> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
>
> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece in
> dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
> architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you see my
> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that there
> is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.
>
> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes work
> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need to
> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
> Scarpino's project.
>
> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
>
>

Rachel Greene July 3 2003 16:32Reply

> TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem is
> that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization
> function,
> accepted it.
> So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk,
> change
> 1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a new
> work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and that's
> the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks, songs,
> poetries and so on.) are so important today .

Yes, if you were undertake a project to copy, deliberately, Eryk's work,
he (Eryk) might not *like it,* but it could constitute a project. In that
case, since you had made it clear that you were interested in making a
work about copying and plagiarism, I think the Eryk-copies would be read
in the historical context of those modes.

I didn't suggest that TS intended to copy your work – I think that is how
you're interpreting it, but that is your call. I have no idea.


>
> Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.
>
> so thank you for your time Rachel,
>
> all the best,
> carlo zanni
>
> "As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
> Take your time, hurry up
> The choice is your, don't be late
> Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"
>
> come as you are, nirvana
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
> <rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations
>
>
>> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
>> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's
>> work
>> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
>> emotional range.
>>
>> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't
>> think
>> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a
>> work.
>> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
>> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
>> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
>> conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
>> church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by
>> different
>> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
>> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
>> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de
>> Kooning
>> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out
>> Eryk,
>> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have
>> had
>> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
>> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
>>
>> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece
>> in
>> dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
>> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
>> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
>> architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you see
>> my
>> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that
>> there
>> is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.
>>
>> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
>> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes
>> work
>> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
>> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
>> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need
>> to
>> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
>> Scarpino's project.
>>
>> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
>>
>>
>

carlo zanni July 3 2003 16:42Reply

there is a misunderstanding
i think you didn't read my emails:

"no I didn't approach him (TS), because I think there is no reason. Perhaps
we had
the same idea.. There is just a difference in the time and as author I
wanted to remark what I did.
I think this fact hides two key issues present in new media art works:
I mean memory and authorship.

Due to the ephemerality of net works, this two factors require a lot of
attention in an historicization - storage process. (even if partial as the
artbase is) "

i said TS didn't copy my work, i think he doesn't know me-my work
there isn't any intentionality - (plagiarism) in that work.
but the artbase that has an historicization function accepted it.
and this is a problem.

carlo


—– Original Message —–
From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
To: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
Cc: "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>; <kjj@libero.it>; <rachel@rhizome.org>;
"Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; "Yucef Merhi" <www@cibernetic.com>;
<marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations


>
> > TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem
is
> > that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization
> > function,
> > accepted it.
> > So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk,
> > change
> > 1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a new
> > work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and
that's
> > the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks, songs,
> > poetries and so on.) are so important today .
>
> Yes, if you were undertake a project to copy, deliberately, Eryk's work,
> he (Eryk) might not *like it,* but it could constitute a project. In that
> case, since you had made it clear that you were interested in making a
> work about copying and plagiarism, I think the Eryk-copies would be read
> in the historical context of those modes.
>
> I didn't suggest that TS intended to copy your work – I think that is how
> you're interpreting it, but that is your call. I have no idea.
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.
> >
> > so thank you for your time Rachel,
> >
> > all the best,
> > carlo zanni
> >
> > "As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
> > Take your time, hurry up
> > The choice is your, don't be late
> > Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"
> >
> > come as you are, nirvana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> > Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
> > <rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations
> >
> >
> >> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
> >> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's
> >> work
> >> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
> >> emotional range.
> >>
> >> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't
> >> think
> >> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a
> >> work.
> >> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
> >> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one
another
> >> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
> >> conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
> >> church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by
> >> different
> >> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
> >> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry
Levine
> >> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de
> >> Kooning
> >> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out
> >> Eryk,
> >> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have
> >> had
> >> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
> >> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
> >>
> >> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece
> >> in
> >> dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
> >> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
> >> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
> >> architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you see
> >> my
> >> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that
> >> there
> >> is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.
> >>
> >> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
> >> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes
> >> work
> >> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
> >> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage
you
> >> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need
> >> to
> >> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor
of
> >> Scarpino's project.
> >>
> >> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Pall Thayer July 3 2003 17:34Reply

You know, I think it is entirely possible that TS's work was made without any
knowledge of CZ's work. If you look at 'Hole in the sky' on TS's website, the
concept behind it is justified in a compelling way.

But to resolve this matter, why doesn't Rhizome offer to include CZ's piece in
the Artbase and maybe even maintain links between the two works? I get the
feeling that the idea behind CZ's work is based on the fact that the towers
simply aren't there anymore but TS explains that his idea was based on the
resulting chaos/dropped requests on the internet around the time of the
tragic event. I find both quite compelling and interesting pieces.

I think it's quite significant if in fact one event led two different artists
to come to such similar conclusions and that they may be based on very
different ideas.

I can well understand CZ's anger though. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in his
shoes. I think the Rhizome people who have responded to him could show a
little more compassion.

Pall Thayer

On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:32, Rachel@rhizome.org wrote:
> > TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem is
> > that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization
> > function,
> > accepted it.
> > So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk,
> > change
> > 1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a new
> > work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and
> > that's the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks,
> > songs, poetries and so on.) are so important today .
>
> Yes, if you were undertake a project to copy, deliberately, Eryk's work,
> he (Eryk) might not *like it,* but it could constitute a project. In that
> case, since you had made it clear that you were interested in making a
> work about copying and plagiarism, I think the Eryk-copies would be read
> in the historical context of those modes.
>
> I didn't suggest that TS intended to copy your work – I think that is how
> you're interpreting it, but that is your call. I have no idea.
>
> > Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.
> >
> > so thank you for your time Rachel,
> >
> > all the best,
> > carlo zanni
> >
> > "As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
> > Take your time, hurry up
> > The choice is your, don't be late
> > Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"
> >
> > come as you are, nirvana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> > Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
> > <rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations
> >
> >> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
> >> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's
> >> work
> >> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
> >> emotional range.
> >>
> >> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't
> >> think
> >> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a
> >> work.
> >> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
> >> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
> >> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
> >> conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
> >> church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by
> >> different
> >> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
> >> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
> >> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de
> >> Kooning
> >> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out
> >> Eryk,
> >> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have
> >> had
> >> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
> >> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
> >>
> >> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece
> >> in
> >> dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
> >> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
> >> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
> >> architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you see
> >> my
> >> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that
> >> there
> >> is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.
> >>
> >> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
> >> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes
> >> work
> >> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
> >> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
> >> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need
> >> to
> >> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
> >> Scarpino's project.
> >>
> >> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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


Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/isjs
http://www.this.is/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse

Rachel Greene July 3 2003 18:03Reply

I apologize if I didn't seem compassionate – I was caught up in the art
historical context, etc., I didn't mean to belittle Carlo's concerns about
artbase policy. Sorry, Rachel

> You know, I think it is entirely possible that TS's work was made without
> any
> knowledge of CZ's work. If you look at 'Hole in the sky' on TS's website,
> the
> concept behind it is justified in a compelling way.
>
> But to resolve this matter, why doesn't Rhizome offer to include CZ's
> piece in
> the Artbase and maybe even maintain links between the two works? I get the
> feeling that the idea behind CZ's work is based on the fact that the
> towers
> simply aren't there anymore but TS explains that his idea was based on the
> resulting chaos/dropped requests on the internet around the time of the
> tragic event. I find both quite compelling and interesting pieces.
>
> I think it's quite significant if in fact one event led two different
> artists
> to come to such similar conclusions and that they may be based on very
> different ideas.
>
> I can well understand CZ's anger though. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in
> his
> shoes. I think the Rhizome people who have responded to him could show a
> little more compassion.
>
> Pall Thayer
>
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:32, Rachel@rhizome.org wrote:
>> > TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem
>> is
>> > that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization
>> > function,
>> > accepted it.
>> > So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk,
>> > change
>> > 1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a
>> new
>> > work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and
>> > that's the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks,
>> > songs, poetries and so on.) are so important today .
>>
>> Yes, if you were undertake a project to copy, deliberately, Eryk's work,
>> he (Eryk) might not *like it,* but it could constitute a project. In
>> that
>> case, since you had made it clear that you were interested in making a
>> work about copying and plagiarism, I think the Eryk-copies would be read
>> in the historical context of those modes.
>>
>> I didn't suggest that TS intended to copy your work – I think that is
>> how
>> you're interpreting it, but that is your call. I have no idea.
>>
>> > Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.
>> >
>> > so thank you for your time Rachel,
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> > carlo zanni
>> >
>> > "As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
>> > Take your time, hurry up
>> > The choice is your, don't be late
>> > Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"
>> >
>> > come as you are, nirvana
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > —– Original Message —–
>> > From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
>> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
>> > Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
>> > <rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations
>> >
>> >> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works.
>> In
>> >> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's
>> >> work
>> >> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
>> >> emotional range.
>> >>
>> >> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't
>> >> think
>> >> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a
>> >> work.
>> >> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established
>> practices
>> >> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one
>> another
>> >> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
>> >> conventions – pushing the limits of painting a particular building
>> or
>> >> church – seeing what happened when the building was painted by
>> >> different
>> >> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse,
>> appropriation,
>> >> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry
>> Levine
>> >> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de
>> >> Kooning
>> >> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out
>> >> Eryk,
>> >> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have
>> >> had
>> >> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
>> >> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
>> >>
>> >> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's
>> piece
>> >> in
>> >> dialogue with yours – perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe
>> it
>> >> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
>> >> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
>> >> architecture, his all white oeuvre – I am making these up, but you
>> see
>> >> my
>> >> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that
>> >> there
>> >> is other, similar work being made – it makes one want to dig deeper.
>> >>
>> >> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms
>> for
>> >> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes
>> >> work
>> >> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've
>> been
>> >> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage
>> you
>> >> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's
>> need
>> >> to
>> >> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor
>> of
>> >> Scarpino's project.
>> >>
>> >> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> 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
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/isjs
> http://www.this.is/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>

Yucef Merhi July 3 2003 20:40Reply

Hello everybody,
It seems fair to me if Carlo's work is also included in the artbase and
both works are contextualized by the year they were created. This
experiece is a good example of synchronicity. It is completely possible
that Carlo and Tom have had the same idea in different times, but it is
necessary to set a historical precedent to understand the proximity
between both works, and Rhizome has the capability to do it.
Hope you are well,
yucef

Eryk Salvaggio July 4 2003 01:18Reply

Also worth mentioning:

http://www.jimpunk.com/NYC/wtc/

-e.

—– Original Message —–
From: Yucef Merhi
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Historically Significant Imitations


Hello everybody,
It seems fair to me if Carlo's work is also included in the artbase and b=
oth works are contextualized by the year they were created. This experiece =
is a good example of synchronicity. It is completely possible that Carlo an=
d Tom have had the same idea in different times, but it is necessary to set=
a historical precedent to understand the proximity between both works, an=
d Rhizome has the capability to do it.
Hope you are well,
yucef