Then, what does this say? Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
What does this say?
THat's what I want to know.
Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
—- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / Velvet Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). > > -e. >
But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now it's Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised Fischerspooner wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward synthetic performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless year- maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection process and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
"So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so hard for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "voyd" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Then, what does this say? > Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? > Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… > > What does this say? > > THat's what I want to know. > > Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. > > —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / Velvet Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). > > > > -e. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work, another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More by Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > Personally I would have nominated myself. > > But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now > it's > Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised > Fischerspooner > wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward > synthetic > performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless > year- > maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection > process > and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The > inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too. > > "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we > already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so > hard > for, and now it can't afford the property taxes. > > -e. > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "voyd" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > > >> Then, what does this say? >> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? >> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say > that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the > istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… >> >> What does this say? >> >> THat's what I want to know. >> >> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. >> >> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / >>> Velvet > Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). >>> >>> -e. >>> >> + >> -> post: [email protected] >> -> questions: [email protected] >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members >> + >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >> Membership Agreement available online at >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >> > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
personal view. not that 'web art is not communicating to curators' but that curators (Iles, Singer, Momin) are not communicating to netart. is it conservatism on their behalf or perhaps a lack of background/knowledge for the medium. all I can hope for is that it is not a whitney museum's 'not supporting netart' policy matter. and this might clear out by 2006.
I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to curators/net.art.
There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts with any significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's Coach House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a bit of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie, not much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by the book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who use hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver) whom I don't think has anything out from Coach House.
In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more net-art oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that show.
MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media related books.
The beauty of the situation is that writers can, themselves, publish their own hybrid work on their own sites and give the publishers the bird. I publish my own work on my own site, have since 95, and do a better job of it than I could reasonably expect of any publisher. My work would be costly for a publisher to do in print because of the visual aspect of it. Not to mention the links and the audio, DHTML, Java, Shockwave, etc, which is not simply difficult to do in print, but impossible. Mind you, if I were to put a book for print together, at this point, it would be a hybrid book/CD/site rather than simply material from the site; I don't like shovelware, whether it's shoveling print onto the Web or shoveling Web work into print.
I do publish stuff in print occassionally, and publish my Web work on other sites. But mostly I publish digitally, on the Web. I don't need print publishers. And after many years of being a writer before the Web, I'll tell you, I'm happy about that.
If it happens that I come across a publisher with whom I hit it off and share interests, like re-writing poetry and not sticking to a print-minded approach, then great, I'll work with them. But neither I nor others who are Web savvy have to 'submit' to publishers, and that is very good news for writers wanting to do something different. I get about 400-500 visitors a day to my site. It ain't CNN, but for a writer, it's pretty encouraging. Publishing books is quite a discouraging thing in Canada. Like maybe 500 copies and no international distribution. The Web is widely international in the blink of an eye. And my own sense is that poetry and 'literature' are about as tired as some visual net.artists tell me they feel about painting.
Some publishers might like to see the net go away, but it won't happen. Far from being over, digital writing is still in the early phases. Not exactly the beginning, but print is still the dominant mode of writing in society. That will eventually change. *Is* changing, but slowly. Changing slowly like the role of computers in our lives is changing slowly. Literacy therein is synthetic of the app, programming, and the many ways of 'reading' we are more familiar with regarding various arts and media.
Print is quite the thing though. God wrote some books, I gather. Maybe we'll have to wait until God writes some Web stuff, gives it the big nod.
God didn't do any paintings or visual art that I'm aware of. Maybe Heshewemeyouthey did some though, like bloody the odd painting or sculpture or whatever. So maybe visual arts aren't quite so blessedly burdened by dogma as is the word.
Still, though, I heard a big curator in Canada say 'an artist is nothing without a gallery'. Publishers and curators sometimes have this sort of hubris about what they do. And they really do need to be given the bird strongly in this case. The net is mass media already. Artists can use it in ways that publishers and curators can't. And it needs the attention of artists trying to create art on a broad international level. Also, the folks out there on the net need to see work that's taking the media/um seriously and taking the arts in new directions better suited to electrified communications.
Eastgate Systems ( http://eastgate.com ) publish ROM-based hypertexts in the US. They seem open to moving toward hypermedia, but their emphasis is decidedly narrative.
We're pretty far off topic, but if anybody knows of any interesting, commercially available new media ROM-based projects (not linear DVD, not linear audio, not Quake or Doom), I'd love to hear about them.
+++++++++++++
Regarding the artist/curator & writer/publisher conundrum, i'll introduce another dichotomy that cuts across both pairings – academic/popular.
In print, I can write an article for Wired magazine that earns me some thousand dollars and is read by half a million people, or I can submit a much more thoroughly footnoted article to a peer-reviewed journal that few (albeit well-degreed) people read, and if my article is accepted, I get the pleasure of putting that fact on my CV.
In art, I can make and self-publish net art that attracts thousands of unique visitors per day, but unless that art is funded or commissioned by some academically recognized, taste-arbiting institution, it means little to the academy.
In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had arrived. In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple platinum, you had arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some hits and the odd email from a confused but amused visitor, you had arrived. But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we?
> I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the > situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to > curators/net.art. > > There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts > with any > significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's > Coach > House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a > bit > of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie, > not > much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by > the > book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who > use > hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver) > whom > I don't think has anything out from Coach House. > > In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or > hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more > net-art > oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that > show. > > MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media > related > books.
>But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as every >other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we? > > http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html > > tyrannosaurus rex, > the eater of cars
Could not have said it better myself. Thanks Curt.
And then comes the next wave of artists bringing on the new… and it starts all over again.
Let's make art on top, under, beside, with, inside, outside, against the net.
As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as a piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is it? Its a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I don't know who Anne Marie Schleiner is.
> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work, > another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More by > Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel > > http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com > > > > On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > Personally I would have nominated myself. > > > > But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now > > it's > > Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised > > Fischerspooner > > wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward > > synthetic > > performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless > > year- > > maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection > > process > > and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The > > inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too. > > > > "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we > > already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so > > hard > > for, and now it can't afford the property taxes. > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "voyd" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > > > > > >> Then, what does this say? > >> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? > >> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say > > that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the > > istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… > >> > >> What does this say? > >> > >> THat's what I want to know. > >> > >> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. > >> > >> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / > >>> Velvet > > Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). > >>> > >>> -e. > >>> > >> + > >> -> post: [email protected] > >> -> questions: [email protected] > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >> + > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >> Membership Agreement available online at > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >> > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
Yes, I know most of the URLs you mention, Curt. But I was thinking of print publishers who have evolved toward a significant involvement in net.art. The URLs you cite were never print publishers. There's a venture led by Philippe Castellin (aka Akenaton) in France called DOC(K)S at http://www.sitec.fr/users/akenatondocks . They publish a book once a year. And have done so since the early eighties, if not earlier. They also publish CDs with the book. This book and its CDs are the most engaging and integrated synthesis of print and digital work I've encountered. DOC(K)S has been billed as a 'world poetry revue' for many years. And it actually lives up to its name. The books are extrordinarily well put together. Intelligently graphical. As in visual poetry. Well published. Excellent page design. And the writing is from all over the world, in various languages. Essays. Visual poems. Mail-art-like contributions. Adaptations of Web work. The books are perhaps more impressive than the Web site; the main effort seems to go into the books and CD. The Web site is pretty impressive, however. The books are done in gray-scale. Not glossy. But well-printed, and the design ranges pretty completely over what can be done with gray-scale print. Interestingly, the gray scale (or more likely the way Castellin thinks) results in a kind of intelligent but explosive energy that I think would be hard to capture in glossy color.
One of the longest-lived exclusively digital literature ventures I know of is Alire done by Philippe Bootz in France. It was started in 1989 (see http://www.uoc.edu/humfil/articles/eng/bootz0302/bootz0302.html ). They publish CD's now but started out publishing on floppy.
> In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had > arrived. In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple > platinum, you had arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some > hits and the odd email from a confused but amused visitor, you > had arrived. But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to > the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as > every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we?
I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to do, is able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to get the work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if they're not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for, can easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing without a gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing without a publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's own power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that can be bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an artist. As a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all about. The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and machinations).
> I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to do, is > able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to get the > work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if they're > not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for, can > easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing without a > gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing without a > publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's own > power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that can be > bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an artist. As > a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and > exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all about. > The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and machinations). > > ja > http://vispo.com
Just a brief comment on power. check this out:
"…The political and economic conditions of existence are not a veil or an obstacle for the subject of knowledge but the means by which subjects of knowledge are formed, and hence are Truth relations. There cannot be particular types of subjects of knowledge, orders of truth, or domains of knowledge except on the basis of political conditions that are the very ground on which the subject, the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth are formed."
–from Michel Foucault's "Truth and Juridical Forms" in the book Power, p. 15
Here Foucault is revisiting a Nietzschean narrative to better understand how knowledge functions within the dynamics of power shifting.
Based on this, both powers that you refer to in your above premise are dependent upon a particular dynamic of wanting to be part of a particular narrative (particular type of knowledge). If this were not true, then the Whitney debate would not ever come up. What this means is that the artist has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the establishment (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). If we are going to dismiss this, then we should not even deal with artmaking at all, and move on to another practice. But whatever practice one chooses, there is a certainty that one will have to deal with similar processes of legitimation. One of the reasons why it is hard to see this in art practice is because the artist is often seen as an emancipatory figure, that can enlighten the masses. This narrative has become problematized by the business aspects that accompanies art practice today – the career of the artist, that some are more comfortable suppressing than acknowledging it as part of art making. The aim should be to produce work that is pushing our culture in unexpected ways, the institution is bound to notice at some point. And if it does not, then the artist will figure out a way to be noticed. Is this not what this thread is about? The recurrent question is why the whitney is treating net art in a specific way – is it accepting it? why or why not? This means that some people want in. As a matter of fact, if we are honest, everyone wants "in."
This following quote deals with post-colonial narratives, but it can easily be implemented to the above situation:
"What does need to be remembered is that narratives of emancipation and enlightenment in their strongest form were also narratives of integration not separation, the stories of people who had been excluded from the main group but who were now fighting for a place in it."
– Edward Said from the introduction to Culture and Imperialism p. xxvi
This integration is what all new forms seem to want implicitly – even when some people in the movement are not willing to admit it and decide to move on to create yet another movement, while being fully aware that they are already part of a system that is following their displacement of methods (Hail the Avant-Garde!!). I thin it is best to just make art and be aware of how such dynamics come into play into the personal life. If one feels one should get recognition, then one should be honest about it and deal with the narratives appropriately.
We are bound to function from within, look now, here we are corresponding through a mailing that is now afilliated with a non-profit institution. (And who know who is silently reading this…)
> …the artist > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the > establishment > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…).
I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or organization; and one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this distinction make no sense to you?
I don't mean to deny that we are dependent on each other for even a reason to go on. Who would choose to live if everyone else were dead, for instance? One doesn't need to take the point to this length; we are dependent on one another in the creation of a life worth living. We are also dependent on one another to help each other find our own way, and the strength to pursue it. The power to pursue it. Not that we shouldn't listen to what other people say about what we do. But it's in the nature of things to get lots of resistance to creating something different from what's normally recognized.
One of the beautiful things I've read in a few books, and experienced in my own life, is that our greatest victories are of the spirit. Not worldly ones. Sometimes the greatest victory of a life can be shrouded in worldly defeat, or dealing with it. There's winning and there's losing. But which is which is sometimes confusing.
'Recognition and reversal'. A poetics of tragedy. The annals of great literature have a few works involving 'beautiful losers'; losers in the worldly sense, but characters who find their way to their own type of 'recognition'. And we are all worldly losers in the end, in the sense that 'in the end, what you don't surrender, the world just strips away.'
—– Original Message —– From: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:32 AM Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> > …the artist > > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the > > establishment > > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). > > I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be > bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or organization; and > one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this distinction > make no sense to you?
Fair enough. If a person is going to be recognized with some form of power, this has to be a cultural acknowledgment. In terms of the artist, from the very moment the term "art" is used one is implicating the narratives that I already explained. Of course people have the power of personal choice – or at least one can fight for it if nothing else; but we are talking about why some are "in" and why some are "out." This is specific to the art institution and its basis for recognition. Of course power shifts and this is where progress happens, hence all the different bifurcations that have developed in the history of art, which give me hope for the practice, no matter how disparate it might seem at times. I would say that if there is interest in one's own power, then the term "artist" be ommited from the statement, because unfortunately this term is directly pointing to the previously explained problematics. "Moral agent" may be more appropriate for the individual position that you propose.
> > > …the artist > > > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the > > > establishment > > > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). > > > > I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be > > bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or > organization; and > > one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this > distinction > > make no sense to you? > > Fair enough. If a person is going to be recognized with some > form of power, > this has to be a cultural acknowledgment.
People can have their own power whether it's recognized by others or not. Much is unseen.
Literature and art is full of stories about the value of individual experience, Eduardo. It's the death of art to accept that institutions are the ultimate arbiters of what's valuable in art and life. It's about making up your own mind, freeing your own mind from false authority.
> In terms of the > artist, from the > very moment the term "art" is used one is implicating the > narratives that I > already explained. Of course people have the power of personal choice – > or at least one can fight for it if nothing else; but we are talking about > why some are "in" and why some are "out." This is specific to the art > institution and its basis for recognition. Of course power > shifts and this > is where progress happens, hence all the different bifurcations that have > developed in the history of art, which give me hope for the practice, no > matter how disparate it might seem at times. I would say that if there is > interest in one's own power, then the term "artist" be ommited from the > statement, because unfortunately this term is directly pointing to the > previously explained problematics. "Moral agent" may be more appropriate > for the individual position that you propose.
I remember a conversation with a publisher from a few years ago. We were talking about the state of literary criticism in Canada. We both agreed it was pretty shitty. He blamed the Canada Council. 'Why?', I asked him. 'They don't fund enough criticism,' he said.
But the Canada Council can't create interesting, consequential criticism by funding more criticism. It has to come from critics whose passion it is to write consequential criticism. If they aren't out there, throwing a bit of money in the direction of criticism isn't going to change the situation.
Criticism is usually more like art spam these days. Ads in praise of the product. That's the main problem. Not the Canada Council funding or not funding it.
But the publisher was so heavily institutionalized that this made no sense to him. Fund a few more units of criticism and there you go, you got your criticism. Approve it. Recognize it. That'll do it.
The power to create consequential work is something somebody can acquire not from someone else, but from consciousness of and exercise of their own powers as an artist, a person, and a moral agent. The power to recognize that work is something that those who recognize it have. The power to give it a prize is something that a committee can organize. But that is far from the power I was describing.
Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance. Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as > a > piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is > it? Its > a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I > don't > know who Anne Marie Schleiner is. > > -e. > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > > >> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work, >> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More >> by >> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel >> >> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com >> >> >> >> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: >> >>> >>> Personally I would have nominated myself. >>> >>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. >>> Now >>> it's >>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised >>> Fischerspooner >>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward >>> synthetic >>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless >>> year- >>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection >>> process >>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The >>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too. >>> >>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that >>> we >>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so >>> hard >>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes. >>> >>> -e. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> —– Original Message —– >>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? >>> >>> >>>> Then, what does this say? >>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? >>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it >>>> say >>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that >>> the >>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… >>>> >>>> What does this say? >>>> >>>> THat's what I want to know. >>>> >>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. >>>> >>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / >>>>> Velvet >>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). >>>>> >>>>> -e. >>>>> >>>> + >>>> -> post: [email protected] >>>> -> questions: [email protected] >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members >>>> + >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >>>> Membership Agreement available online at >>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >>>> >>> >>> + >>> -> post: [email protected] >>> -> questions: [email protected] >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members >>> + >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >>> Membership Agreement available online at >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >>> >> >> + >> -> post: [email protected] >> -> questions: [email protected] >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members >> + >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >> Membership Agreement available online at >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >> > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
I think that the difference here can be made between web art and new media. It's pretty arbitrary, but the distiction really centers around the hullabaloo arund the 2000WB and the 'Internet' art component. Now, nearly all of the major new media curators are downgraded severely (this could be merely due to the mainstreaming effect), and web-based art has all but disappeared re: shows like the WB.
It's just interesting.
> Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance. > Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely > considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on > opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work. > > On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as > > a > > piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is > > it? Its > > a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I > > don't > > know who Anne Marie Schleiner is. > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > > > > > >> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work, > >> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More > >> by > >> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel > >> > >> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Personally I would have nominated myself. > >>> > >>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. > >>> Now > >>> it's > >>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised > >>> Fischerspooner > >>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward > >>> synthetic > >>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless > >>> year- > >>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection > >>> process > >>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The > >>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too. > >>> > >>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that > >>> we > >>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so > >>> hard > >>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes. > >>> > >>> -e. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> —– Original Message —– > >>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM > >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > >>> > >>> > >>>> Then, what does this say? > >>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? > >>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it > >>>> say > >>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that > >>> the > >>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… > >>>> > >>>> What does this say? > >>>> > >>>> THat's what I want to know. > >>>> > >>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. > >>>> > >>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / > >>>>> Velvet > >>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). > >>>>> > >>>>> -e. > >>>>> > >>>> + > >>>> -> post: [email protected] > >>>> -> questions: [email protected] > >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >>>> + > >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >>>> Membership Agreement available online at > >>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >>>> > >>> > >>> + > >>> -> post: [email protected] > >>> -> questions: [email protected] > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >>> + > >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >>> Membership Agreement available online at > >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >>> > >> > >> + > >> -> post: [email protected] > >> -> questions: [email protected] > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >> + > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >> Membership Agreement available online at > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >> > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > >
I think Foucault is useful in critiquing marxist understandings of power, showing that social power is fluid and not wed to de facto institutions. The problem with social theorists as art critics is – there is (or can be) a decidedly idividualistic aspect to an artwork, an artist, an act of artistic creation. But the social theorist has to see everything as derived from and in dialogue with society.
But what about the idea of private, contemplative worship as a form of art? This is certainly not a new concept. I believe in God and improvise vocally and instrumentally (on my precious Fender Rhodes 73 acousto-electric keyboard), just thanking him and celebrating my existence. Nobody hears these "performances." I don't record them. I only mention them here by way of an example of some form of art not seeking to impose social power.
playdamage.org is a more overtly public but no less personal form of worship. The social theorist would say I'm fooling myself and I'm really acting according to this or that social rule, but then the social theorist has already decided that God as an actual living entity is irrelevant, that religion is a form of class control, and a number of other assumptions that allow him to re-interpret (he would say "rightly" interpret) these forms of individual expression and fit them into whatever his social theory happens to be.
Not all individuals are so subject to such ordnances of social power. Not all people live in a city. Not all people desire to exercise power. Some people desire to cede power. (Anybody who says Francis of Asissi or Mother Theressa performed their acts of sacrifice as some kind of subconscious potlatch to gain social or spiritual power is removed from the street and has been drinking his own theoretical cool aid).
One can focus on society and museums and galleries, and on artists making activist or scene-aware art about society and museums and galleries, and one could understandably conclude that art can't exist outside of dialogue with these institutions. But art (of all things) need not be political. Art can and reguglarly does exist outside of these institutions: http://www.deepyoung.org/sister/ Howard Finster and Clementine Hunter also come to mind.
Such art may be called "outsider" by the institutions, but the folks making such art don't call it outsider, or folk, or anything other than "this stuff I'm making because I just feel like making this stuff." In such arenas of personal expression, marxist and neo-marxist criticism seems forced when applied. And the internet has been and can be such an arena.
peace, curt
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> > I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to > do, is > > able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to > get the > > work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if > they're > > not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for, > can > > easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing > without > a > > gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing > without a > > publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's > own > > power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that > can be > > bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an > artist. > As > > a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and > > exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all > about. > > The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and > machinations). > > > > ja > > http://vispo.com > > Just a brief comment on power. check this out: > > "…The political and economic conditions of existence are not a veil > or an > obstacle for the subject of knowledge but the means by which subjects > of > knowledge are formed, and hence are Truth relations. There cannot be > particular types of subjects of knowledge, orders of truth, or domains > of > knowledge except on the basis of political conditions that are the > very > ground on which the subject, the domains of knowledge, and the > relations > with truth are formed." > > –from Michel Foucault's "Truth and Juridical Forms" in the book > Power, p. > 15 > > > Here Foucault is revisiting a Nietzschean narrative to better > understand how > knowledge functions within the dynamics of power shifting. > > Based on this, both powers that you refer to in your above premise are > dependent upon a particular dynamic of wanting to be part of a > particular > narrative (particular type of knowledge). If this were not true, then > the > Whitney debate would not ever come up. What this means is that the > artist > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the > establishment > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). If we > are > going to dismiss this, then we should not even deal with artmaking at > all, > and move on to another practice. But whatever practice one chooses, > there > is a certainty that one will have to deal with similar processes of > legitimation. One of the reasons why it is hard to see this in art > practice > is because the artist is often seen as an emancipatory figure, that > can > enlighten the masses. This narrative has become problematized by the > business aspects that accompanies art practice today – the career of > the > artist, that some are more comfortable suppressing than acknowledging > it as > part of art making. The aim should be to produce work that is pushing > our > culture in unexpected ways, the institution is bound to notice at some > point. And if it does not, then the artist will figure out a way to > be > noticed. Is this not what this thread is about? The recurrent > question is > why the whitney is treating net art in a specific way – is it > accepting it? > why or why not? This means that some people want in. As a matter of > fact, > if we are honest, everyone wants "in." > > This following quote deals with post-colonial narratives, but it can > easily > be implemented to the above situation: > > "What does need to be remembered is that narratives of emancipation > and > enlightenment in their strongest form were also narratives of > integration > not separation, the stories of people who had been excluded from the > main > group but who were now fighting for a place in it." > > – Edward Said from the introduction to Culture and Imperialism p. > xxvi > > This integration is what all new forms seem to want implicitly – even > when > some people in the movement are not willing to admit it and decide to > move > on to create yet another movement, while being fully aware that they > are > already part of a system that is following their displacement of > methods > (Hail the Avant-Garde!!). I thin it is best to just make art and be > aware > of how such dynamics come into play into the personal life. If one > feels > one should get recognition, then one should be honest about it and > deal with > the narratives appropriately. > > We are bound to function from within, look now, here we are > corresponding > through a mailing that is now afilliated with a non-profit > institution. (And > who know who is silently reading this…) > > Best, > > Eduardo Navas > > > >
You stated: > But what about the idea of private, contemplative worship as a form of art? This is certainly not a new concept. I believe in God and improvise vocally and instrumentally (on my precious Fender Rhodes 73 acousto-electric keyboard), just thanking him and celebrating my existence. Nobody hears these "performances." I don't record them. I only mention them here by way of an example of some form of art not seeking to impose social power. ————–
There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and celebrating my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to have decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a structural approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity. I do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, because you already stated the language difference.
Our(?)West civilization is not against "art",it just ghettoized,disinfected and institunationalized "art" and make social acceptable product.Social condition for someone who want to be considered as an artist are latent,invisible,unspoken which mean strong and clean in essence.Ones absorbed it became bearing,even desirable because get rid of moral and psychological dilemmas.That's the way to entering in trap of "academism". There's two places(space category)for "art";fixed places-galleries,museums,public or private places for announced "art"happenings,and unfixed places-fluxes which belong to "art"like"prostitute to virtue".Consequences are fixed and unfixed("artist's")existence. Chain of social facts nominate "art". Default of aesthetic paradigms make illusion that some genius turn over thing in"art",but what really happens is far from that. Path of "art" look like some political economy contract between "artist"and society."Art"as an social product is more acceptable in high budget variant.Luxurious artifacts are desirable mirrors for any society and society by consensus confirm them as an "art" and cultural heritage. On the other side,in Verwerfung,in gray zone,in space out of any social contract,far from convertible exchanging of sense,uninhabited places are constituent for main stream.It's like matter and anti-matter.Paradoxaly those two classes of space imagination constitute"World of Art".Transition from Verwerfung in "World of Art" is possible.Metamorphosis is caused by social condition.That kind of "transgression"expanding cultural borders(parallelism between inside and outside expansion!).Metamorphosis is definitely.Essence of existence is ultimate different now.After that is impossible to make distance from institutionally(academically)"art".Appropriation other paradigms,replacement,consequently mean renunciation and escape from position which make possible free creator.Now we hawed Artist,perfect part of social machine,example for "Getaway from freedom". Ambivalent position,suspect which is immanent to net communication bring dispersion and make blur in hard edge between fixed and unfixed spaces.Also there's huge number of people who don't have art education.They have skill,sense for new and unexpected,pioneer spirit,they are kind of new barbarian and that's good reason to make Whitney curators so sensitive.Butt we should not bee worried.Next Biennial will show us all magnificence of new rising social contract.There's so many computers in world to bee ignored just like that. MANIK —– Original Message —– From: "curt cloninger" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:48 AM Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Hi Jim, > > Eastgate Systems ( http://eastgate.com ) publish ROM-based hypertexts in the US. They seem open to moving toward hypermedia, but their emphasis is decidedly narrative. > > Web designers publish ROM compilations containing interactive design experiments, homemade software, and such: > http://www.codexseries.com > http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0034 > http://www.designerdock.de/designershock/ds003/inhalt.html > http://www.shift.jp.org/factory/choice/09.html > > Then there is the "autogenerative meta-art as commercial software" paradigm: > http://www.auto-illustrator.com > http://www.dextro.org > https://order.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?storeID=3WJ&& > > We're pretty far off topic, but if anybody knows of any interesting, commercially available new media ROM-based projects (not linear DVD, not linear audio, not Quake or Doom), I'd love to hear about them. > > +++++++++++++ > > Regarding the artist/curator & writer/publisher conundrum, i'll introduce another dichotomy that cuts across both pairings – academic/popular. > > In print, I can write an article for Wired magazine that earns me some thousand dollars and is read by half a million people, or I can submit a much more thoroughly footnoted article to a peer-reviewed journal that few (albeit well-degreed) people read, and if my article is accepted, I get the pleasure of putting that fact on my CV. > > In art, I can make and self-publish net art that attracts thousands of unique visitors per day, but unless that art is funded or commissioned by some academically recognized, taste-arbiting institution, it means little to the academy. > > In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had arrived. In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple platinum, you had arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some hits and the odd email from a confused but amused visitor, you had arrived. But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we? > > http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html > > tyrannosaurus rex, > the eater of cars > _ > > > Jim Andrews wrote: > > > I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the > > situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to > > curators/net.art. > > > > There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts > > with any > > significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's > > Coach > > House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a > > bit > > of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie, > > not > > much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by > > the > > book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who > > use > > hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver) > > whom > > I don't think has anything out from Coach House. > > > > In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or > > hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more > > net-art > > oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that > > show. > > > > MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media > > related > > books. > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
I freely admit the existence and influence of hierarchical structures, and the importance of accurately understanding their dynamics. My problem is taking love and intimacy and thanksgiving and creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin' and reducing them to sociological-driven responses to these power structures.
I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into > poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an > understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your > honesty. I > would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying > to > understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a > necessity. I > do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, > because > you already stated the language difference.
Online performance via video game community. It was net.art but not web art per se. There seem to be very few website-only based works in the biennial.
> Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance. > Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely > considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on > opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work. > > On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as > > a > > piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is > > it? Its > > a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I > > don't > > know who Anne Marie Schleiner is. > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > > > > > >> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work, > >> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More > >> by > >> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel > >> > >> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Personally I would have nominated myself. > >>> > >>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. > >>> Now > >>> it's > >>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised > >>> Fischerspooner > >>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward > >>> synthetic > >>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless > >>> year- > >>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection > >>> process > >>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The > >>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too. > >>> > >>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that > >>> we > >>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so > >>> hard > >>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes. > >>> > >>> -e. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> —– Original Message —– > >>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM > >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial? > >>> > >>> > >>>> Then, what does this say? > >>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB? > >>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it > >>>> say > >>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that > >>> the > >>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired… > >>>> > >>>> What does this say? > >>>> > >>>> THat's what I want to know. > >>>> > >>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford. > >>>> > >>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / > >>>>> Velvet > >>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists). > >>>>> > >>>>> -e. > >>>>> > >>>> + > >>>> -> post: [email protected] > >>>> -> questions: [email protected] > >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >>>> + > >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >>>> Membership Agreement available online at > >>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >>>> > >>> > >>> + > >>> -> post: [email protected] > >>> -> questions: [email protected] > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >>> + > >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >>> Membership Agreement available online at > >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >>> > >> > >> + > >> -> post: [email protected] > >> -> questions: [email protected] > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > >> + > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >> Membership Agreement available online at > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >> > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
Hi Curt I do think your account of marxism is a bit of a straw man, or at least I would if there wasn't so much poisoned marxism around to confuse folk, particularly in academic circles, where Marx's "not a dogma, but a guide to action" is continually transformed into its opposite. Lenin once said that he'd rather listen to an intelligent idealist (in the philosophical, not the popular moral, sense of the word) than a stupid materialist, or words to that effect. Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which qualities got a considerable leg up first from Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less wicked but equally distorted readings of characters like Althusser.
All marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the necessities of life - food, clothing, shelter. I'm not trying to fluffify it here - the consequences of these ideas are far reaching, but the ideas themselves are pretty straightforward. It's indubitably the case that without the things above listed then "love and intimacy and thanksgiving and creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin'" which I too value in all their glorious human particularity and enormously varied manifestations throughout history, would not occur. For me the point of being a marxist is to begin to understand precisely how we can begin to move from "the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom" - so that all of us have a chance to lead full and rich lives and to make art, or whatever we will call it then, too. However much I reject your religious beliefs I find what for me is your humanistic approach to art an extremely sympathetic one - I suppose the big difference between us is that I think there's noone and nothing but us humans & I think we'll have to struggle *here* to make our kingdom of heaven *here* on earth. I'm not sure that the content of that kingdom is in practice that different. regards michael
— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote: > I freely admit the existence and influence of > hierarchical structures, and the importance of > accurately understanding their dynamics. My problem > is taking love and intimacy and thanksgiving and > creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin' and > reducing them to sociological-driven responses to > these power structures. > > sometimes the dolphins just frolic and the lambs > just leap. > http://lab404.com/misc/echoed.gif > http://designforfreedom.com/substitud/Movies/typevsm_small.html > > peace, > curt > > __ > > Eduardo Navas wrote: > > I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning > into > > poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing > his text) with an > > understanding of language difference. I really > appreciate your > > honesty. I > > would say, however, that, since many people are > not religious, trying > > to > > understand how we live within the dynamics of > hierarchies is a > > necessity. I > > do not think we should get into a religious > discussion here however, > > because > > you already stated the language difference. > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
===== *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
> All marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come > from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce > ourselves and the necessities of life - food, > clothing, shelter. > I'm not trying to fluffify it here - the consequences > of these ideas are far reaching, but the ideas > themselves are pretty straightforward. > It's indubitably the case that without the things > above listed then > "love and intimacy and thanksgiving and > creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin'" > which I too value in all their glorious human > particularity and enormously varied manifestations > throughout history, would not occur.
Hi Michael,
I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction, food, clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even prime) cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my head, but not all my actions derive from that fact.
If a spiritual world exists, but I don't allow for its existence, I will wrongly attribute spiritual influences to material causes. If a spiritual world doesn't exist, but I believe one does, I will wrongly attribute material influences to spiritual causes.
—– Original Message —– From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> > Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the > ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of > someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only > of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which > qualities got a considerable leg up first from > Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less > wicked but equally distorted readings of characters > like Althusser.
I can not help to think that you are implicitly relating to the last comment I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to respond. First, you may not have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note that the methodology I was using was based on poststructural analysis, which is much more open than just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the same ground, here is my response as it originally appeared:
"There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and celebrating my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to have decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a structural approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity. I do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, because you already stated the language difference."
Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain branches of Marxism (which I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt) in order to open up a dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that poses as liberal and all inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen for not admitting that there are major differences between religious and dialectic materialist ideologies.
The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in his previous response made it clear that he understood the overall relationship to any form of structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could have used Derrida who is a deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's philolosophy until much later in his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said. The latter whom would be reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his background is extremely diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to point to "stupidity" on such an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful not to a particular individual but to the expectations out of a dialogue, which you yourself are closing off by otherizing a position based on assumptions of a projected ideology.
In the end, Curt explained the separation of ideologies best in his response to you which I will quote here:
"I believe a spiritual world exists." – Curt
The key here is "believe." This contradicts your statement:
"All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the necessities of life - food, clothing, shelter."
Here, you indirectly present the very limitation that I acknowledged to Curt when I wrote on language difference. The major difference is "belief." A person who dissects the world based on structural methods inevitably ends up questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes would call it a social myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very well acknowledged by Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when I already understand the limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this quite obvious to you in his response:
"I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction, food, clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even prime) cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my head, but not all my actions derive from that fact." - Curt
Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an extreme position and propose that such a dialogue would not be possible. Walter Benjamin is polemical due to his combination of theology and Marxist philosophy. He constantly struggled between the two and this becomes quite obvious throughout his books (See "The task of the Translator" in Illuminations: http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm). If anyone is interested in looking further into this tension, I recommend The Postmodern Bible Reader: http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625 It contains interesting essays on how the bible has been read by many semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th Century and possible religious interpretations of their essays.
I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing ideological position.
I never usually comment on my own stuff, but just as a follow through, as Erik just sent the beginning of a new thread, I would like to briefly tie my last comments back to the Whitney thread. Since we got on this tangent on ideology, we are not addressing the original issue; namely, in what other ways can the process of selection by an institution be considered besides the ones that have been discussed so far? And how could this help better understand the dynamics of net art today, its definition(s), etc.? In any case, I think considering other aspects of the upcoming exhibit would be interesting. Or if the thread is over – switch over to Erik's new propositions.
Peace,
Eduardo Navas
—– Original Message —– From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:15 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Hello Michael, > > response below: > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> > > Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the > > ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of > > someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only > > of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which > > qualities got a considerable leg up first from > > Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less > > wicked but equally distorted readings of characters > > like Althusser. > > I can not help to think that you are implicitly relating to the last comment > I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to respond. First, you may not > have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note that the methodology I > was using was based on poststructural analysis, which is much more open than > just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the same ground, here is my > response as it originally appeared: > > "There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and > celebrating > my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you > worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural > analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the > difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to have > decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death > their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a structural > approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into > poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an > understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I > would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to > understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity. I > do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, because > you already stated the language difference." > > > Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain branches of Marxism (which > I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt) in order to open up a > dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that poses as liberal and all > inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen for not admitting that > there are major differences between religious and dialectic materialist > ideologies. > > The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in his previous response > made it clear that he understood the overall relationship to any form of > structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could have used Derrida who is a > deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's philolosophy until much later in > his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said. The latter whom would be > reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his background is extremely > diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to point to "stupidity" on such > an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful not to a particular > individual but to the expectations out of a dialogue, which you yourself are > closing off by otherizing a position based on assumptions of a projected > ideology. > > In the end, Curt explained the separation of ideologies best in his response > to you which I will quote here: > > "I believe a spiritual world exists." > – Curt > > The key here is "believe." > This contradicts your statement: > > "All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come from nowhere but > arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the necessities of life - food, > clothing, shelter." > > Here, you indirectly present the very limitation that I acknowledged to Curt > when I wrote on language difference. The major difference is "belief." A > person who dissects the world based on structural methods inevitably ends up > questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes would call it a social > myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very well acknowledged by > Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when I already understand the > limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this quite obvious to you in his > response: > > "I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction, food, > clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know > whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even prime) > cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my head, > but not all my actions derive from that fact." > - Curt > > Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an extreme position and > propose that such a dialogue would not be possible. Walter Benjamin is > polemical due to his combination of theology and Marxist philosophy. He > constantly struggled between the two and this becomes quite obvious > throughout his books (See "The task of the Translator" in Illuminations: > http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm). If anyone is > interested in looking further into this tension, I recommend The Postmodern > Bible Reader: http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625 > It contains interesting essays on how the bible has been read by many > semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th Century and possible > religious interpretations of their essays. > > I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing ideological position. > > SiU. > Eduardo Navas > > > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
Eduardo -it absolutely *wasn't* a pop at you. It occured to me after I posted that it might read like that and although I think I would have disagreemnets with you it was not those I was expressing there. Rather the whole thing was a relatively unrigorous meditation about why, although I absolutely don't share Curt's starting point, I find myself so often in absolute solidarity with him on matters cultural ( & I'm a Trot of the old school -I sell socialist papers in the street each week, when I'm employed I usually end up being the union rep,I 've covered thousand of miles marching, I want to see a genuine 'dictatorship of the proletariat' &c) I think this is because I think there *is* an authentic, as opposed to a poisoned, Marxist tradition and that that tradition is about creating a world where many of the values and pleasures that Curt quite rightly celebrates are available to all. I want to defend *this* Marxism against charges of cultural dogmatism - even a cursory reading of marx on literature and art,or Trotsky's magnificent 1920s writings on culture will show that, much of what is now understood as 'marxist' cultural theory is a stalinist or post stalinist academic perversion. In this spirit I certainly don't reject many of the thinkers you cite, but I do think they need to be read carefully and critically. But, I repeat, not a dig at you! best michael — Eduardo Navas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Michael, > > response below: > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> > > Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, > the > > ability to have real insight, solely on the ground > of > > someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not > only > > of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which > > qualities got a considerable leg up first from > > Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the > less > > wicked but equally distorted readings of > characters > > like Althusser. > > I can not help to think that you are implicitly > relating to the last comment > I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to > respond. First, you may not > have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note > that the methodology I > was using was based on poststructural analysis, > which is much more open than > just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the > same ground, here is my > response as it originally appeared: > > "There is a form of communication at hand: "just > thanking him and > celebrating > my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic > (God is in power–you > worship him). But let's leave my structural > analysis behind (a structural > analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think > that knowing the > difference in methods of understanding the world is > really important to have > decent communication with others. Most people would > just argue to death > their spiritual position without being aware of the > dynamics of a structural > approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism > (rather turning into > poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing > his text) with an > understanding of language difference. I really > appreciate your honesty. I > would say, however, that, since many people are not > religious, trying to > understand how we live within the dynamics of > hierarchies is a necessity. I > do not think we should get into a religious > discussion here however, because > you already stated the language difference." > > > Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain > branches of Marxism (which > I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt) > in order to open up a > dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that > poses as liberal and all > inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen > for not admitting that > there are major differences between religious and > dialectic materialist > ideologies. > > The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in > his previous response > made it clear that he understood the overall > relationship to any form of > structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could > have used Derrida who is a > deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's > philolosophy until much later in > his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said. > The latter whom would be > reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his > background is extremely > diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to > point to "stupidity" on such > an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful > not to a particular > individual but to the expectations out of a > dialogue, which you yourself are > closing off by otherizing a position based on > assumptions of a projected > ideology. > > In the end, Curt explained the separation of > ideologies best in his response > to you which I will quote here: > > "I believe a spiritual world exists." > – Curt > > The key here is "believe." > This contradicts your statement: > > "All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't > come from nowhere but > arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the > necessities of life - food, > clothing, shelter." > > Here, you indirectly present the very limitation > that I acknowledged to Curt > when I wrote on language difference. The major > difference is "belief." A > person who dissects the world based on structural > methods inevitably ends up > questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes > would call it a social > myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very > well acknowledged by > Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when > I already understand the > limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this > quite obvious to you in his > response: > > "I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying > that reproduction, food, > clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this > earth, but I don't know > whether their persistent presence makes them the > underlying (or even prime) > cause for every other thing we do. I've always had > two eyeballs in my head, > but not all my actions derive from that fact." > - Curt > > Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an > extreme position and > propose that such a dialogue would not be possible. > Walter Benjamin is > polemical due to his combination of theology and > Marxist philosophy. He > constantly struggled between the two and this > becomes quite obvious > throughout his books (See "The task of the > Translator" in Illuminations: > http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm). > If anyone is > interested in looking further into this tension, I > recommend The Postmodern > Bible Reader: > http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625 > It contains interesting essays on how the bible has > been read by many > semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th > Century and possible > religious interpretations of their essays. > > I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing > ideological position. > > SiU. > Eduardo Navas > > > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
===== *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
—– Original Message —– From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> To: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:36 AM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Eduardo -it absolutely *wasn't* a pop at you. > It occured to me after I posted that it might read > like that and although I think I would have > disagreemnets with you it was not those I was > expressing there.
Hey Michael,
Fine, Thanks for clarifying that. I am also glad you understand why I considered your response a pop at me.
In any case, I think the dialogue is interesting, and in the end is about the exchange of ideas more than anything. As you noticed, I did send some material that is relelvant to your interests at the end of my response.
Comments
Then, what does this say?
Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
What does this say?
THat's what I want to know.
Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
—- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / Velvet Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
>
> -e.
>
Personally I would have nominated myself.
But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now it's
Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised Fischerspooner
wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward synthetic
performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless year-
maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection process
and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
"So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we
already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so hard
for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Then, what does this say?
> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say
that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the
istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
>
> What does this say?
>
> THat's what I want to know.
>
> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
>
> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel / Velvet
Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
> >
> > -e.
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work,
another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More by
Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> Personally I would have nominated myself.
>
> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now
> it's
> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised
> Fischerspooner
> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward
> synthetic
> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless
> year-
> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection
> process
> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
>
> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we
> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so
> hard
> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
>
>
>> Then, what does this say?
>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say
> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the
> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
>>
>> What does this say?
>>
>> THat's what I want to know.
>>
>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
>>
>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel /
>>> Velvet
> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
>>>
>>> -e.
>>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>> What does this say?
personal view.
not that 'web art is not communicating to curators' but that curators (Iles,
Singer, Momin) are not communicating to netart.
is it conservatism on their behalf or perhaps a lack of background/knowledge
for the medium.
all I can hope for is that it is not a whitney museum's 'not
supporting netart' policy matter.
and this might clear out by 2006.
I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the
situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to curators/net.art.
There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts with any
significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's Coach
House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a bit
of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie, not
much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by the
book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who use
hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver) whom
I don't think has anything out from Coach House.
In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or
hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more net-art
oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that show.
MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media related
books.
The beauty of the situation is that writers can, themselves, publish their
own hybrid work on their own sites and give the publishers the bird. I
publish my own work on my own site, have since 95, and do a better job of it
than I could reasonably expect of any publisher. My work would be costly for
a publisher to do in print because of the visual aspect of it. Not to
mention the links and the audio, DHTML, Java, Shockwave, etc, which is not
simply difficult to do in print, but impossible. Mind you, if I were to put
a book for print together, at this point, it would be a hybrid book/CD/site
rather than simply material from the site; I don't like shovelware, whether
it's shoveling print onto the Web or shoveling Web work into print.
I do publish stuff in print occassionally, and publish my Web work on other
sites. But mostly I publish digitally, on the Web. I don't need print
publishers. And after many years of being a writer before the Web, I'll tell
you, I'm happy about that.
If it happens that I come across a publisher with whom I hit it off and
share interests, like re-writing poetry and not sticking to a print-minded
approach, then great, I'll work with them. But neither I nor others who are
Web savvy have to 'submit' to publishers, and that is very good news for
writers wanting to do something different. I get about 400-500 visitors a
day to my site. It ain't CNN, but for a writer, it's pretty encouraging.
Publishing books is quite a discouraging thing in Canada. Like maybe 500
copies and no international distribution. The Web is widely international in
the blink of an eye. And my own sense is that poetry and 'literature' are
about as tired as some visual net.artists tell me they feel about painting.
Some publishers might like to see the net go away, but it won't happen. Far
from being over, digital writing is still in the early phases. Not exactly
the beginning, but print is still the dominant mode of writing in society.
That will eventually change. *Is* changing, but slowly. Changing slowly like
the role of computers in our lives is changing slowly. Literacy therein is
synthetic of the app, programming, and the many ways of 'reading' we are
more familiar with regarding various arts and media.
Print is quite the thing though. God wrote some books, I gather. Maybe we'll
have to wait until God writes some Web stuff, gives it the big nod.
God didn't do any paintings or visual art that I'm aware of. Maybe
Heshewemeyouthey did some though, like bloody the odd painting or sculpture
or whatever. So maybe visual arts aren't quite so blessedly burdened by
dogma as is the word.
Still, though, I heard a big curator in Canada say 'an artist is nothing
without a gallery'. Publishers and curators sometimes have this sort of
hubris about what they do. And they really do need to be given the bird
strongly in this case. The net is mass media already. Artists can use it in
ways that publishers and curators can't. And it needs the attention of
artists trying to create art on a broad international level. Also, the folks
out there on the net need to see work that's taking the media/um seriously
and taking the arts in new directions better suited to electrified
communications.
ja
Hi Jim,
Eastgate Systems ( http://eastgate.com ) publish ROM-based hypertexts in the US. They seem open to moving toward hypermedia, but their emphasis is decidedly narrative.
Web designers publish ROM compilations containing interactive design experiments, homemade software, and such:
http://www.codexseries.com
http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0034
http://www.designerdock.de/designershock/ds003/inhalt.html
http://www.shift.jp.org/factory/choice/09.html
Then there is the "autogenerative meta-art as commercial software" paradigm:
http://www.auto-illustrator.com
http://www.dextro.org
https://order.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?storeID=3WJ&&
We're pretty far off topic, but if anybody knows of any interesting, commercially available new media ROM-based projects (not linear DVD, not linear audio, not Quake or Doom), I'd love to hear about them.
+++++++++++++
Regarding the artist/curator & writer/publisher conundrum, i'll introduce another dichotomy that cuts across both pairings – academic/popular.
In print, I can write an article for Wired magazine that earns me some thousand dollars and is read by half a million people, or I can submit a much more thoroughly footnoted article to a peer-reviewed journal that few (albeit well-degreed) people read, and if my article is accepted, I get the pleasure of putting that fact on my CV.
In art, I can make and self-publish net art that attracts thousands of unique visitors per day, but unless that art is funded or commissioned by some academically recognized, taste-arbiting institution, it means little to the academy.
In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had arrived. In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple platinum, you had arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some hits and the odd email from a confused but amused visitor, you had arrived. But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we?
http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html
tyrannosaurus rex,
the eater of cars
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the
> situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to
> curators/net.art.
>
> There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts
> with any
> significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's
> Coach
> House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a
> bit
> of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie,
> not
> much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by
> the
> book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who
> use
> hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver)
> whom
> I don't think has anything out from Coach House.
>
> In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or
> hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more
> net-art
> oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that
> show.
>
> MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media
> related
> books.
>But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to the same funky,
academically-derived arbitration machinations as every >other
gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we?
>
> http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html
>
> tyrannosaurus rex,
> the eater of cars
Could not have said it better myself. Thanks Curt.
And then comes the next wave of artists bringing on the new…
and it starts all over again.
Let's make art on top, under, beside, with, inside, outside, against the
net.
best,
Eduardo Navas
As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as a
piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is it? Its
a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I don't
know who Anne Marie Schleiner is.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work,
> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More by
> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
>
> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally I would have nominated myself.
> >
> > But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over. Now
> > it's
> > Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised
> > Fischerspooner
> > wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward
> > synthetic
> > performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless
> > year-
> > maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection
> > process
> > and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
> > inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
> >
> > "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that we
> > already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so
> > hard
> > for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> >
> >
> >> Then, what does this say?
> >> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
> >> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it say
> > that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that the
> > istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
> >>
> >> What does this say?
> >>
> >> THat's what I want to know.
> >>
> >> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
> >>
> >> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel /
> >>> Velvet
> > Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
> >>>
> >>> -e.
> >>>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Yes, I know most of the URLs you mention, Curt. But I was thinking of print
publishers who have evolved toward a significant involvement in net.art. The
URLs you cite were never print publishers. There's a venture led by Philippe
Castellin (aka Akenaton) in France called DOC(K)S at
http://www.sitec.fr/users/akenatondocks . They publish a book once a year.
And have done so since the early eighties, if not earlier. They also publish
CDs with the book. This book and its CDs are the most engaging and
integrated synthesis of print and digital work I've encountered. DOC(K)S has
been billed as a 'world poetry revue' for many years. And it actually lives
up to its name. The books are extrordinarily well put together.
Intelligently graphical. As in visual poetry. Well published. Excellent page
design. And the writing is from all over the world, in various languages.
Essays. Visual poems. Mail-art-like contributions. Adaptations of Web work.
The books are perhaps more impressive than the Web site; the main effort
seems to go into the books and CD. The Web site is pretty impressive,
however. The books are done in gray-scale. Not glossy. But well-printed, and
the design ranges pretty completely over what can be done with gray-scale
print. Interestingly, the gray scale (or more likely the way Castellin
thinks) results in a kind of intelligent but explosive energy that I think
would be hard to capture in glossy color.
One of the longest-lived exclusively digital literature ventures I know of
is Alire done by Philippe Bootz in France. It was started in 1989 (see
http://www.uoc.edu/humfil/articles/eng/bootz0302/bootz0302.html ). They
publish CD's now but started out publishing on floppy.
> In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had
> arrived. In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple
> platinum, you had arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some
> hits and the odd email from a confused but amused visitor, you
> had arrived. But now, net artists are "real" artists, subject to
> the same funky, academically-derived arbitration machinations as
> every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are we?
I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to do, is
able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to get the
work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if they're
not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for, can
easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing without a
gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing without a
publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's own
power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that can be
bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an artist. As
a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and
exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all about.
The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and machinations).
ja
http://vispo.com
> I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to do, is
> able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to get the
> work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if
they're
> not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for, can
> easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing without
a
> gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing without a
> publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's own
> power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that can be
> bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an artist.
As
> a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and
> exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all
about.
> The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and
machinations).
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
Just a brief comment on power. check this out:
"…The political and economic conditions of existence are not a veil or an
obstacle for the subject of knowledge but the means by which subjects of
knowledge are formed, and hence are Truth relations. There cannot be
particular types of subjects of knowledge, orders of truth, or domains of
knowledge except on the basis of political conditions that are the very
ground on which the subject, the domains of knowledge, and the relations
with truth are formed."
–from Michel Foucault's "Truth and Juridical Forms" in the book Power, p.
15
Here Foucault is revisiting a Nietzschean narrative to better understand how
knowledge functions within the dynamics of power shifting.
Based on this, both powers that you refer to in your above premise are
dependent upon a particular dynamic of wanting to be part of a particular
narrative (particular type of knowledge). If this were not true, then the
Whitney debate would not ever come up. What this means is that the artist
has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the establishment
(the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). If we are
going to dismiss this, then we should not even deal with artmaking at all,
and move on to another practice. But whatever practice one chooses, there
is a certainty that one will have to deal with similar processes of
legitimation. One of the reasons why it is hard to see this in art practice
is because the artist is often seen as an emancipatory figure, that can
enlighten the masses. This narrative has become problematized by the
business aspects that accompanies art practice today – the career of the
artist, that some are more comfortable suppressing than acknowledging it as
part of art making. The aim should be to produce work that is pushing our
culture in unexpected ways, the institution is bound to notice at some
point. And if it does not, then the artist will figure out a way to be
noticed. Is this not what this thread is about? The recurrent question is
why the whitney is treating net art in a specific way – is it accepting it?
why or why not? This means that some people want in. As a matter of fact,
if we are honest, everyone wants "in."
This following quote deals with post-colonial narratives, but it can easily
be implemented to the above situation:
"What does need to be remembered is that narratives of emancipation and
enlightenment in their strongest form were also narratives of integration
not separation, the stories of people who had been excluded from the main
group but who were now fighting for a place in it."
– Edward Said from the introduction to Culture and Imperialism p. xxvi
This integration is what all new forms seem to want implicitly – even when
some people in the movement are not willing to admit it and decide to move
on to create yet another movement, while being fully aware that they are
already part of a system that is following their displacement of methods
(Hail the Avant-Garde!!). I thin it is best to just make art and be aware
of how such dynamics come into play into the personal life. If one feels
one should get recognition, then one should be honest about it and deal with
the narratives appropriately.
We are bound to function from within, look now, here we are corresponding
through a mailing that is now afilliated with a non-profit institution. (And
who know who is silently reading this…)
Best,
Eduardo Navas
> …the artist
> has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the
> establishment
> (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…).
I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be
bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or organization; and
one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this distinction
make no sense to you?
I don't mean to deny that we are dependent on each other for even a reason
to go on. Who would choose to live if everyone else were dead, for instance?
One doesn't need to take the point to this length; we are dependent on one
another in the creation of a life worth living. We are also dependent on one
another to help each other find our own way, and the strength to pursue it.
The power to pursue it. Not that we shouldn't listen to what other people
say about what we do. But it's in the nature of things to get lots of
resistance to creating something different from what's normally recognized.
One of the beautiful things I've read in a few books, and experienced in my
own life, is that our greatest victories are of the spirit. Not worldly
ones. Sometimes the greatest victory of a life can be shrouded in worldly
defeat, or dealing with it. There's winning and there's losing. But which is
which is sometimes confusing.
'Recognition and reversal'. A poetics of tragedy. The annals of great
literature have a few works involving 'beautiful losers'; losers in the
worldly sense, but characters who find their way to their own type of
'recognition'. And we are all worldly losers in the end, in the sense that
'in the end, what you don't surrender, the world just strips away.'
ja
http://vispo.com
—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:32 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> > …the artist
> > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the
> > establishment
> > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…).
>
> I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be
> bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or organization; and
> one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this
distinction
> make no sense to you?
Fair enough. If a person is going to be recognized with some form of power,
this has to be a cultural acknowledgment. In terms of the artist, from the
very moment the term "art" is used one is implicating the narratives that I
already explained. Of course people have the power of personal choice –
or at least one can fight for it if nothing else; but we are talking about
why some are "in" and why some are "out." This is specific to the art
institution and its basis for recognition. Of course power shifts and this
is where progress happens, hence all the different bifurcations that have
developed in the history of art, which give me hope for the practice, no
matter how disparate it might seem at times. I would say that if there is
interest in one's own power, then the term "artist" be ommited from the
statement, because unfortunately this term is directly pointing to the
previously explained problematics. "Moral agent" may be more appropriate
for the individual position that you propose.
Best,
Eduardo
> > > …the artist
> > > has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the
> > > establishment
> > > (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…).
> >
> > I distinguished between two types of power, Eduardo: power that can be
> > bestowed on one by the 'establishment' or any person or
> organization; and
> > one's own power as an artist, a person, a moral agent. Does this
> distinction
> > make no sense to you?
>
> Fair enough. If a person is going to be recognized with some
> form of power,
> this has to be a cultural acknowledgment.
People can have their own power whether it's recognized by others or not.
Much is unseen.
Literature and art is full of stories about the value of individual
experience, Eduardo. It's the death of art to accept that institutions are
the ultimate arbiters of what's valuable in art and life. It's about making
up your own mind, freeing your own mind from false authority.
> In terms of the
> artist, from the
> very moment the term "art" is used one is implicating the
> narratives that I
> already explained. Of course people have the power of personal choice –
> or at least one can fight for it if nothing else; but we are talking about
> why some are "in" and why some are "out." This is specific to the art
> institution and its basis for recognition. Of course power
> shifts and this
> is where progress happens, hence all the different bifurcations that have
> developed in the history of art, which give me hope for the practice, no
> matter how disparate it might seem at times. I would say that if there is
> interest in one's own power, then the term "artist" be ommited from the
> statement, because unfortunately this term is directly pointing to the
> previously explained problematics. "Moral agent" may be more appropriate
> for the individual position that you propose.
I remember a conversation with a publisher from a few years ago. We were
talking about the state of literary criticism in Canada. We both agreed it
was pretty shitty. He blamed the Canada Council. 'Why?', I asked him. 'They
don't fund enough criticism,' he said.
But the Canada Council can't create interesting, consequential criticism by
funding more criticism. It has to come from critics whose passion it is to
write consequential criticism. If they aren't out there, throwing a bit of
money in the direction of criticism isn't going to change the situation.
Criticism is usually more like art spam these days. Ads in praise of the
product. That's the main problem. Not the Canada Council funding or not
funding it.
But the publisher was so heavily institutionalized that this made no sense
to him. Fund a few more units of criticism and there you go, you got your
criticism. Approve it. Recognize it. That'll do it.
The power to create consequential work is something somebody can acquire not
from someone else, but from consciousness of and exercise of their own
powers as an artist, a person, and a moral agent. The power to recognize
that work is something that those who recognize it have. The power to give
it a prize is something that a committee can organize. But that is far from
the power I was describing.
ja
http://vispo.com
Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance.
Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely
considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on
opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as
> a
> piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is
> it? Its
> a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I
> don't
> know who Anne Marie Schleiner is.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
>
>
>> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work,
>> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More
>> by
>> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
>>
>> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Personally I would have nominated myself.
>>>
>>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over.
>>> Now
>>> it's
>>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised
>>> Fischerspooner
>>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward
>>> synthetic
>>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless
>>> year-
>>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection
>>> process
>>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
>>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
>>>
>>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that
>>> we
>>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so
>>> hard
>>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
>>>
>>> -e.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> —– Original Message —–
>>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Then, what does this say?
>>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
>>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it
>>>> say
>>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that
>>> the
>>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
>>>>
>>>> What does this say?
>>>>
>>>> THat's what I want to know.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
>>>>
>>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel /
>>>>> Velvet
>>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
>>>>>
>>>>> -e.
>>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>>> +
>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
I think that the difference here can be made between web art and new media.
It's pretty arbitrary, but the distiction really centers around the
hullabaloo arund the 2000WB and the 'Internet' art component. Now, nearly
all of the major new media curators are downgraded severely (this could be
merely due to the mainstreaming effect), and web-based art has all but
disappeared re: shows like the WB.
It's just interesting.
> Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance.
> Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely
> considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on
> opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work.
>
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as
> > a
> > piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is
> > it? Its
> > a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I
> > don't
> > know who Anne Marie Schleiner is.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> >
> >
> >> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work,
> >> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More
> >> by
> >> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
> >>
> >> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally I would have nominated myself.
> >>>
> >>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over.
> >>> Now
> >>> it's
> >>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised
> >>> Fischerspooner
> >>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward
> >>> synthetic
> >>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless
> >>> year-
> >>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection
> >>> process
> >>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
> >>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
> >>>
> >>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that
> >>> we
> >>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so
> >>> hard
> >>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
> >>>
> >>> -e.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> —– Original Message —–
> >>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
> >>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Then, what does this say?
> >>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
> >>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it
> >>>> say
> >>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that
> >>> the
> >>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
> >>>>
> >>>> What does this say?
> >>>>
> >>>> THat's what I want to know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
> >>>>
> >>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel /
> >>>>> Velvet
> >>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -e.
> >>>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>>> +
> >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
Hi Eduardo,
I think Foucault is useful in critiquing marxist understandings of power, showing that social power is fluid and not wed to de facto institutions. The problem with social theorists as art critics is – there is (or can be) a decidedly idividualistic aspect to an artwork, an artist, an act of artistic creation. But the social theorist has to see everything as derived from and in dialogue with society.
But what about the idea of private, contemplative worship as a form of art? This is certainly not a new concept. I believe in God and improvise vocally and instrumentally (on my precious Fender Rhodes 73 acousto-electric keyboard), just thanking him and celebrating my existence. Nobody hears these "performances." I don't record them. I only mention them here by way of an example of some form of art not seeking to impose social power.
playdamage.org is a more overtly public but no less personal form of worship. The social theorist would say I'm fooling myself and I'm really acting according to this or that social rule, but then the social theorist has already decided that God as an actual living entity is irrelevant, that religion is a form of class control, and a number of other assumptions that allow him to re-interpret (he would say "rightly" interpret) these forms of individual expression and fit them into whatever his social theory happens to be.
Not all individuals are so subject to such ordnances of social power. Not all people live in a city. Not all people desire to exercise power. Some people desire to cede power. (Anybody who says Francis of Asissi or Mother Theressa performed their acts of sacrifice as some kind of subconscious potlatch to gain social or spiritual power is removed from the street and has been drinking his own theoretical cool aid).
One can focus on society and museums and galleries, and on artists making activist or scene-aware art about society and museums and galleries, and one could understandably conclude that art can't exist outside of dialogue with these institutions. But art (of all things) need not be political. Art can and reguglarly does exist outside of these institutions:
http://www.deepyoung.org/sister/
Howard Finster and Clementine Hunter also come to mind.
Such art may be called "outsider" by the institutions, but the folks making such art don't call it outsider, or folk, or anything other than "this stuff I'm making because I just feel like making this stuff." In such arenas of personal expression, marxist and neo-marxist criticism seems forced when applied. And the internet has been and can be such an arena.
peace,
curt
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> > I think that if an artist is able to do the work that they want to
> do, is
> > able to create a situation where that is possible, and is able to
> get the
> > work out there, then the rest is gravy. Aspirations to 'make it', if
> they're
> > not centred around the work itself, or all that the work stands for,
> can
> > easily be quite disappointing. The idea that 'an artist is nothing
> without
> a
> > gallery' is as fatuous as the notion that a writer is nothing
> without a
> > publisher. Waiting on the approval of others is not the way to one's
> own
> > power. There are basically two types of power. There's power that
> can be
> > bestowed on you by others. And then there's your own power. As an
> artist.
> As
> > a person. As a moral agent. To my way of thinking, its finding and
> > exercising the latter that the practice and production of art is all
> about.
> > The power of the fundamentally human amidst the machines (and
> machinations).
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
>
> Just a brief comment on power. check this out:
>
> "…The political and economic conditions of existence are not a veil
> or an
> obstacle for the subject of knowledge but the means by which subjects
> of
> knowledge are formed, and hence are Truth relations. There cannot be
> particular types of subjects of knowledge, orders of truth, or domains
> of
> knowledge except on the basis of political conditions that are the
> very
> ground on which the subject, the domains of knowledge, and the
> relations
> with truth are formed."
>
> –from Michel Foucault's "Truth and Juridical Forms" in the book
> Power, p.
> 15
>
>
> Here Foucault is revisiting a Nietzschean narrative to better
> understand how
> knowledge functions within the dynamics of power shifting.
>
> Based on this, both powers that you refer to in your above premise are
> dependent upon a particular dynamic of wanting to be part of a
> particular
> narrative (particular type of knowledge). If this were not true, then
> the
> Whitney debate would not ever come up. What this means is that the
> artist
> has no power unless there is some form of recognition by the
> establishment
> (the domains of knowledge, and the relations with truth…). If we
> are
> going to dismiss this, then we should not even deal with artmaking at
> all,
> and move on to another practice. But whatever practice one chooses,
> there
> is a certainty that one will have to deal with similar processes of
> legitimation. One of the reasons why it is hard to see this in art
> practice
> is because the artist is often seen as an emancipatory figure, that
> can
> enlighten the masses. This narrative has become problematized by the
> business aspects that accompanies art practice today – the career of
> the
> artist, that some are more comfortable suppressing than acknowledging
> it as
> part of art making. The aim should be to produce work that is pushing
> our
> culture in unexpected ways, the institution is bound to notice at some
> point. And if it does not, then the artist will figure out a way to
> be
> noticed. Is this not what this thread is about? The recurrent
> question is
> why the whitney is treating net art in a specific way – is it
> accepting it?
> why or why not? This means that some people want in. As a matter of
> fact,
> if we are honest, everyone wants "in."
>
> This following quote deals with post-colonial narratives, but it can
> easily
> be implemented to the above situation:
>
> "What does need to be remembered is that narratives of emancipation
> and
> enlightenment in their strongest form were also narratives of
> integration
> not separation, the stories of people who had been excluded from the
> main
> group but who were now fighting for a place in it."
>
> – Edward Said from the introduction to Culture and Imperialism p.
> xxvi
>
> This integration is what all new forms seem to want implicitly – even
> when
> some people in the movement are not willing to admit it and decide to
> move
> on to create yet another movement, while being fully aware that they
> are
> already part of a system that is following their displacement of
> methods
> (Hail the Avant-Garde!!). I thin it is best to just make art and be
> aware
> of how such dynamics come into play into the personal life. If one
> feels
> one should get recognition, then one should be honest about it and
> deal with
> the narratives appropriately.
>
> We are bound to function from within, look now, here we are
> corresponding
> through a mailing that is now afilliated with a non-profit
> institution. (And
> who know who is silently reading this…)
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
Hello Curt,
You stated:
> But what about the idea of private, contemplative worship as a form of
art? This is certainly not a new concept. I believe in God and improvise
vocally and instrumentally (on my precious Fender Rhodes 73 acousto-electric
keyboard), just thanking him and celebrating my existence. Nobody hears
these "performances." I don't record them. I only mention them here by way
of an example of some form of art not seeking to impose social power.
————–
There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and celebrating
my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you
worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural
analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the
difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to have
decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death
their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a structural
approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into
poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an
understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I
would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to
understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity. I
do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, because
you already stated the language difference.
Best,
Eduardo Navas
Our(?)West civilization is not against "art",it just ghettoized,disinfected
and institunationalized "art" and make social acceptable product.Social
condition for someone who want to be considered as an artist are
latent,invisible,unspoken which mean strong and clean in essence.Ones
absorbed it became bearing,even desirable because get rid of moral and
psychological dilemmas.That's the way to entering in trap of "academism".
There's two places(space category)for "art";fixed
places-galleries,museums,public or private places for announced
"art"happenings,and unfixed places-fluxes which belong to
"art"like"prostitute to virtue".Consequences are fixed and
unfixed("artist's")existence.
Chain of social facts nominate "art". Default of aesthetic paradigms make
illusion that some genius turn over thing in"art",but what really happens is
far from that.
Path of "art" look like some political economy contract between "artist"and
society."Art"as an social product is more acceptable in high budget
variant.Luxurious artifacts are desirable mirrors for any society and
society by consensus confirm them as an "art" and cultural heritage.
On the other side,in Verwerfung,in gray zone,in space out of any social
contract,far from convertible exchanging of sense,uninhabited places are
constituent for main stream.It's like matter and anti-matter.Paradoxaly
those two classes of space imagination constitute"World of Art".Transition
from Verwerfung in "World of Art" is possible.Metamorphosis is caused by
social condition.That kind of "transgression"expanding cultural
borders(parallelism between inside and outside expansion!).Metamorphosis is
definitely.Essence of existence is ultimate different now.After that is
impossible to make distance from
institutionally(academically)"art".Appropriation other
paradigms,replacement,consequently mean renunciation and escape from
position which make possible free creator.Now we hawed Artist,perfect part
of social machine,example for "Getaway from freedom".
Ambivalent position,suspect which is immanent to net communication bring
dispersion and make blur in hard edge between fixed and unfixed spaces.Also
there's huge number of people who don't have art education.They have
skill,sense for new and unexpected,pioneer spirit,they are kind of new
barbarian and that's good reason to make Whitney curators so sensitive.Butt
we should not bee worried.Next Biennial will show us all magnificence of new
rising social contract.There's so many computers in world to bee ignored
just like that.
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "curt cloninger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:48 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Hi Jim,
>
> Eastgate Systems ( http://eastgate.com ) publish ROM-based hypertexts in
the US. They seem open to moving toward hypermedia, but their emphasis is
decidedly narrative.
>
> Web designers publish ROM compilations containing interactive design
experiments, homemade software, and such:
> http://www.codexseries.com
> http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0034
> http://www.designerdock.de/designershock/ds003/inhalt.html
> http://www.shift.jp.org/factory/choice/09.html
>
> Then there is the "autogenerative meta-art as commercial software"
paradigm:
> http://www.auto-illustrator.com
> http://www.dextro.org
> https://order.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?storeID=3WJ&&
>
> We're pretty far off topic, but if anybody knows of any interesting,
commercially available new media ROM-based projects (not linear DVD, not
linear audio, not Quake or Doom), I'd love to hear about them.
>
> +++++++++++++
>
> Regarding the artist/curator & writer/publisher conundrum, i'll introduce
another dichotomy that cuts across both pairings – academic/popular.
>
> In print, I can write an article for Wired magazine that earns me some
thousand dollars and is read by half a million people, or I can submit a
much more thoroughly footnoted article to a peer-reviewed journal that few
(albeit well-degreed) people read, and if my article is accepted, I get the
pleasure of putting that fact on my CV.
>
> In art, I can make and self-publish net art that attracts thousands of
unique visitors per day, but unless that art is funded or commissioned by
some academically recognized, taste-arbiting institution, it means little to
the academy.
>
> In Rennaissance Italian painting, if the Pope hired you, you had arrived.
In 70s disco music, if your new single went tripple platinum, you had
arrived. In mid-90s net art, if you got some hits and the odd email from a
confused but amused visitor, you had arrived. But now, net artists are
"real" artists, subject to the same funky, academically-derived arbitration
machinations as every other gallery-desirous contemporary artists. Or are
we?
>
> http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html
>
> tyrannosaurus rex,
> the eater of cars
> _
>
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > I come mainly from a background in writing. And radio. Consider the
> > situation concerning publishers/net.art in relation to
> > curators/net.art.
> >
> > There are very few publishers of literary or literary-related texts
> > with any
> > significant involvement in net.art. In Canada, where I live, there's
> > Coach
> > House Books ( http://www.chbooks.com ) out of Toronto. They do quite a
> > bit
> > of production for the Web. Yet they are pretty hypertext-oriented, ie,
> > not
> > much image or javascript or sound etc used in ways that don't 'go by
> > the
> > book'. Which is fine and dandy but there aren't too many writers who
> > use
> > hypertext to any effect. An exception being Kate Armstrong (Vancouver)
> > whom
> > I don't think has anything out from Coach House.
> >
> > In the States, there's Alt-x. Again, they're pretty pdf or
> > hypertext-oriented, but there's a sense that they could be more
> > net-art
> > oriented in the future, given that Mark Amerika seems to run that
> > show.
> >
> > MIT press seems to be the most interesting publisher of new-media
> > related
> > books.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
I freely admit the existence and influence of hierarchical structures, and the importance of accurately understanding their dynamics. My problem is taking love and intimacy and thanksgiving and creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin' and reducing them to sociological-driven responses to these power structures.
sometimes the dolphins just frolic and the lambs just leap.
http://lab404.com/misc/echoed.gif
http://designforfreedom.com/substitud/Movies/typevsm_small.html
peace,
curt
__
Eduardo Navas wrote:
I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into
> poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an
> understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your
> honesty. I
> would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying
> to
> understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a
> necessity. I
> do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however,
> because
> you already stated the language difference.
Online performance via video game community. It was net.art but not web art
per se. There seem to be very few website-only based works in the biennial.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> Velvet Strike may have been performance, but it was online performance.
> Not sure what line you're making to exclude it but I think it is widely
> considered a net-based project. You can look up Anne Marie starting on
> opensorcery.net – she has a pretty amazing body of work.
>
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:33 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > As if Miranda July wouldn't have been there anyway. Wasn't she born as
> > a
> > piece for the Whitney Biennial? And Velevet Strike isn't web art, is
> > it? Its
> > a video game performance piece. I missed Golan Levin in the list and I
> > don't
> > know who Anne Marie Schleiner is.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "voyd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> >
> >
> >> Besides Anne-Marie Schleiner, Velvet Strike and Golan Levin's work,
> >> another web-based piece in the Biennial is Learning to Love You More
> >> by
> >> Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. – Rachel
> >>
> >> http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally I would have nominated myself.
> >>>
> >>> But really, it's a trend- net.art is, in institutional eyes, over.
> >>> Now
> >>> it's
> >>> Tracy and the Plastics, which is fine by me. I am surprised
> >>> Fischerspooner
> >>> wasn't included, then we could say there was a real trend toward
> >>> synthetic
> >>> performance or something, but no such luck. Maybe it's a trendless
> >>> year-
> >>> maybe American Art needed a break, my guess is that the selection
> >>> process
> >>> and curator organization this year harmed smaller niche artforms. The
> >>> inclusion of dead artists is interesting, too.
> >>>
> >>> "So what" is a good question; I think it just means everything that
> >>> we
> >>> already know: It's out of the ghetto, which everyone was fighting so
> >>> hard
> >>> for, and now it can't afford the property taxes.
> >>>
> >>> -e.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> —– Original Message —–
> >>> From: "voyd" <[email protected]>
> >>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:14 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Then, what does this say?
> >>>> Does it matter whether any web art is in the WB?
> >>>> Does it say that web art is not communicating to curators, does it
> >>>> say
> >>> that there is not good American web art currently, does it say that
> >>> the
> >>> istitution has had its dalliance with web art and grown tired…
> >>>>
> >>>> What does this say?
> >>>>
> >>>> THat's what I want to know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I would have nominated David Crawford.
> >>>>
> >>>> —- Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or did I just not recognize any of them? (And no, Cory Arcangel /
> >>>>> Velvet
> >>> Strike- good folks- are not web artists, they're software artists).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -e.
> >>>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>>> +
> >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Hi Curt
I do think your account of marxism is a bit of a straw
man, or at least I would if there wasn't so much
poisoned marxism around to confuse folk, particularly
in academic circles, where Marx's "not a dogma, but a
guide to action" is continually transformed into its
opposite.
Lenin once said that he'd rather listen to an
intelligent idealist (in the philosophical, not the
popular moral, sense of the word) than a stupid
materialist, or words to that effect.
Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the
ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of
someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only
of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which
qualities got a considerable leg up first from
Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less
wicked but equally distorted readings of characters
like Althusser.
All marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come
from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce
ourselves and the necessities of life - food,
clothing, shelter.
I'm not trying to fluffify it here - the consequences
of these ideas are far reaching, but the ideas
themselves are pretty straightforward.
It's indubitably the case that without the things
above listed then
"love and intimacy and thanksgiving and
creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin'"
which I too value in all their glorious human
particularity and enormously varied manifestations
throughout history, would not occur.
For me the point of being a marxist is to begin to
understand precisely how we can begin to move from
"the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom" - so
that all of us have a chance to lead full and rich
lives and to make art, or whatever we will call it
then, too.
However much I reject your religious beliefs I find
what for me is your humanistic approach to art an
extremely sympathetic one - I suppose the big
difference between us is that I think there's noone
and nothing but us humans & I think we'll have to
struggle *here* to make our kingdom of heaven *here*
on earth.
I'm not sure that the content of that kingdom is in
practice that different.
regards
michael
— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I freely admit the existence and influence of
> hierarchical structures, and the importance of
> accurately understanding their dynamics. My problem
> is taking love and intimacy and thanksgiving and
> creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin' and
> reducing them to sociological-driven responses to
> these power structures.
>
> sometimes the dolphins just frolic and the lambs
> just leap.
> http://lab404.com/misc/echoed.gif
>
http://designforfreedom.com/substitud/Movies/typevsm_small.html
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> __
>
> Eduardo Navas wrote:
>
> I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning
> into
> > poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing
> his text) with an
> > understanding of language difference. I really
> appreciate your
> > honesty. I
> > would say, however, that, since many people are
> not religious, trying
> > to
> > understand how we live within the dynamics of
> hierarchies is a
> > necessity. I
> > do not think we should get into a religious
> discussion here however,
> > because
> > you already stated the language difference.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> All marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come
> from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce
> ourselves and the necessities of life - food,
> clothing, shelter.
> I'm not trying to fluffify it here - the consequences
> of these ideas are far reaching, but the ideas
> themselves are pretty straightforward.
> It's indubitably the case that without the things
> above listed then
> "love and intimacy and thanksgiving and
> creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin'"
> which I too value in all their glorious human
> particularity and enormously varied manifestations
> throughout history, would not occur.
Hi Michael,
I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction, food, clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even prime) cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my head, but not all my actions derive from that fact.
If a spiritual world exists, but I don't allow for its existence, I will wrongly attribute spiritual influences to material causes. If a spiritual world doesn't exist, but I believe one does, I will wrongly attribute material influences to spiritual causes.
I believe a spiritual world exists.
local mileage may vary,
curt
Hello Michael,
response below:
—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the
> ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of
> someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only
> of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which
> qualities got a considerable leg up first from
> Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less
> wicked but equally distorted readings of characters
> like Althusser.
I can not help to think that you are implicitly relating to the last comment
I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to respond. First, you may not
have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note that the methodology I
was using was based on poststructural analysis, which is much more open than
just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the same ground, here is my
response as it originally appeared:
"There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and
celebrating
my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you
worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural
analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the
difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to have
decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death
their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a structural
approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into
poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an
understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I
would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to
understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity. I
do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however, because
you already stated the language difference."
Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain branches of Marxism (which
I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt) in order to open up a
dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that poses as liberal and all
inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen for not admitting that
there are major differences between religious and dialectic materialist
ideologies.
The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in his previous response
made it clear that he understood the overall relationship to any form of
structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could have used Derrida who is a
deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's philolosophy until much later in
his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said. The latter whom would be
reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his background is extremely
diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to point to "stupidity" on such
an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful not to a particular
individual but to the expectations out of a dialogue, which you yourself are
closing off by otherizing a position based on assumptions of a projected
ideology.
In the end, Curt explained the separation of ideologies best in his response
to you which I will quote here:
"I believe a spiritual world exists."
– Curt
The key here is "believe."
This contradicts your statement:
"All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come from nowhere but
arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the necessities of life - food,
clothing, shelter."
Here, you indirectly present the very limitation that I acknowledged to Curt
when I wrote on language difference. The major difference is "belief." A
person who dissects the world based on structural methods inevitably ends up
questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes would call it a social
myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very well acknowledged by
Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when I already understand the
limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this quite obvious to you in his
response:
"I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction, food,
clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know
whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even prime)
cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my head,
but not all my actions derive from that fact."
- Curt
Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an extreme position and
propose that such a dialogue would not be possible. Walter Benjamin is
polemical due to his combination of theology and Marxist philosophy. He
constantly struggled between the two and this becomes quite obvious
throughout his books (See "The task of the Translator" in Illuminations:
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm). If anyone is
interested in looking further into this tension, I recommend The Postmodern
Bible Reader: http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625
It contains interesting essays on how the bible has been read by many
semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th Century and possible
religious interpretations of their essays.
I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing ideological position.
SiU.
Eduardo Navas
I never usually comment on my own stuff, but just as a follow through, as
Erik just sent the beginning of a new thread, I would like to briefly tie
my last comments back to the Whitney thread. Since we got on this tangent on
ideology, we are not addressing the original issue; namely, in what other
ways can the process of selection by an institution be considered besides
the ones that have been discussed so far? And how could this help better
understand the dynamics of net art today, its definition(s), etc.? In any
case, I think considering other aspects of the upcoming exhibit would be
interesting. Or if the thread is over – switch over to Erik's new
propositions.
Peace,
Eduardo Navas
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney
Biennial?
> Hello Michael,
>
> response below:
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas, the
> > ability to have real insight, solely on the ground of
> > someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not only
> > of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which
> > qualities got a considerable leg up first from
> > Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the less
> > wicked but equally distorted readings of characters
> > like Althusser.
>
> I can not help to think that you are implicitly relating to the last
comment
> I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to respond. First, you may not
> have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note that the methodology
I
> was using was based on poststructural analysis, which is much more open
than
> just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the same ground, here is
my
> response as it originally appeared:
>
> "There is a form of communication at hand: "just thanking him and
> celebrating
> my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic (God is in power–you
> worship him). But let's leave my structural analysis behind (a structural
> analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think that knowing the
> difference in methods of understanding the world is really important to
have
> decent communication with others. Most people would just argue to death
> their spiritual position without being aware of the dynamics of a
structural
> approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism (rather turning into
> poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing his text) with an
> understanding of language difference. I really appreciate your honesty. I
> would say, however, that, since many people are not religious, trying to
> understand how we live within the dynamics of hierarchies is a necessity.
I
> do not think we should get into a religious discussion here however,
because
> you already stated the language difference."
>
>
> Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain branches of Marxism
(which
> I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt) in order to open up a
> dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that poses as liberal and all
> inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen for not admitting that
> there are major differences between religious and dialectic materialist
> ideologies.
>
> The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in his previous response
> made it clear that he understood the overall relationship to any form of
> structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could have used Derrida who is
a
> deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's philolosophy until much later
in
> his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said. The latter whom would
be
> reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his background is extremely
> diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to point to "stupidity" on
such
> an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful not to a particular
> individual but to the expectations out of a dialogue, which you yourself
are
> closing off by otherizing a position based on assumptions of a projected
> ideology.
>
> In the end, Curt explained the separation of ideologies best in his
response
> to you which I will quote here:
>
> "I believe a spiritual world exists."
> – Curt
>
> The key here is "believe."
> This contradicts your statement:
>
> "All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come from nowhere but
> arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the necessities of life -
food,
> clothing, shelter."
>
> Here, you indirectly present the very limitation that I acknowledged to
Curt
> when I wrote on language difference. The major difference is "belief." A
> person who dissects the world based on structural methods inevitably ends
up
> questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes would call it a
social
> myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very well acknowledged by
> Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when I already understand
the
> limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this quite obvious to you in
his
> response:
>
> "I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that reproduction,
food,
> clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I don't know
> whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even
prime)
> cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my
head,
> but not all my actions derive from that fact."
> - Curt
>
> Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an extreme position and
> propose that such a dialogue would not be possible. Walter Benjamin is
> polemical due to his combination of theology and Marxist philosophy. He
> constantly struggled between the two and this becomes quite obvious
> throughout his books (See "The task of the Translator" in Illuminations:
> http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm). If anyone is
> interested in looking further into this tension, I recommend The
Postmodern
> Bible Reader: http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625
> It contains interesting essays on how the bible has been read by many
> semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th Century and possible
> religious interpretations of their essays.
>
> I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing ideological position.
>
> SiU.
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Eduardo -it absolutely *wasn't* a pop at you.
It occured to me after I posted that it might read
like that and although I think I would have
disagreemnets with you it was not those I was
expressing there.
Rather the whole thing was a relatively unrigorous
meditation about why, although I absolutely don't
share Curt's starting point, I find myself so often in
absolute solidarity with him on matters cultural ( &
I'm a Trot of the old school -I sell socialist papers
in the street each week, when I'm employed I usually
end up being the union rep,I 've covered thousand of
miles marching, I want to see a genuine 'dictatorship
of the proletariat' &c)
I think this is because I think there *is* an
authentic, as opposed to a poisoned, Marxist tradition
and that that tradition is about creating a world
where many of the values and pleasures that Curt quite
rightly celebrates are available to all.
I want to defend *this* Marxism against charges of
cultural dogmatism - even a cursory reading of marx on
literature and art,or Trotsky's magnificent 1920s
writings on culture will show that, much of what is
now understood as 'marxist' cultural theory is a
stalinist or post stalinist academic perversion.
In this spirit I certainly don't reject many of the
thinkers you cite, but I do think they need to be read
carefully and critically.
But, I repeat, not a dig at you!
best
michael
— Eduardo Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> response below:
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > Any "marxist" who denied on principal the ideas,
> the
> > ability to have real insight, solely on the ground
> of
> > someone's religious beliefs would be guilty not
> only
> > of philistinism but stupidity too, both of which
> > qualities got a considerable leg up first from
> > Stalin's perversion of marxism but also from the
> less
> > wicked but equally distorted readings of
> characters
> > like Althusser.
>
> I can not help to think that you are implicitly
> relating to the last comment
> I sent to the list. So, I feel compelled to
> respond. First, you may not
> have read the whole thread; so, I would like to note
> that the methodology I
> was using was based on poststructural analysis,
> which is much more open than
> just a Marxist stance. To make sure we are on the
> same ground, here is my
> response as it originally appeared:
>
> "There is a form of communication at hand: "just
> thanking him and
> celebrating
> my existence" which implies a certain power dynamic
> (God is in power–you
> worship him). But let's leave my structural
> analysis behind (a structural
> analysis need not be marxist by the way…). I think
> that knowing the
> difference in methods of understanding the world is
> really important to have
> decent communication with others. Most people would
> just argue to death
> their spiritual position without being aware of the
> dynamics of a structural
> approach. I am glad you dismiss structuralism
> (rather turning into
> poststructuralism at the time Foucault was writing
> his text) with an
> understanding of language difference. I really
> appreciate your honesty. I
> would say, however, that, since many people are not
> religious, trying to
> understand how we live within the dynamics of
> hierarchies is a necessity. I
> do not think we should get into a religious
> discussion here however, because
> you already stated the language difference."
>
>
> Second, with all due respect, demonizing certain
> branches of Marxism (which
> I never claimed, but rather was mentioned by Curt)
> in order to open up a
> dialogue is admitting to a particular agenda that
> poses as liberal and all
> inclusive when in fact it is rather a smokescreen
> for not admitting that
> there are major differences between religious and
> dialectic materialist
> ideologies.
>
> The limitations that Curt had already mentioned in
> his previous response
> made it clear that he understood the overall
> relationship to any form of
> structural analysis, not just Marxism – I could
> have used Derrida who is a
> deconstructionist and did not tackle Marx's
> philolosophy until much later in
> his career. But instead I used Foucault and Said.
> The latter whom would be
> reluctant to be singled-out as a "Marxist," as his
> background is extremely
> diverse in terms of methods of analysis. So to
> point to "stupidity" on such
> an assumption is rather abusive and disrespectful
> not to a particular
> individual but to the expectations out of a
> dialogue, which you yourself are
> closing off by otherizing a position based on
> assumptions of a projected
> ideology.
>
> In the end, Curt explained the separation of
> ideologies best in his response
> to you which I will quote here:
>
> "I believe a spiritual world exists."
> – Curt
>
> The key here is "believe."
> This contradicts your statement:
>
> "All Marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't
> come from nowhere but
> arise out of how we reproduce ourselves and the
> necessities of life - food,
> clothing, shelter."
>
> Here, you indirectly present the very limitation
> that I acknowledged to Curt
> when I wrote on language difference. The major
> difference is "belief." A
> person who dissects the world based on structural
> methods inevitably ends up
> questioning religion itself as well. Roland Barthes
> would call it a social
> myth (See the book Mythologies). And this was very
> well acknowledged by
> Curt. So why should I try to be all inclusive when
> I already understand the
> limitations of such a dialogue? Curt made this
> quite obvious to you in his
> response:
>
> "I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying
> that reproduction, food,
> clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this
> earth, but I don't know
> whether their persistent presence makes them the
> underlying (or even prime)
> cause for every other thing we do. I've always had
> two eyeballs in my head,
> but not all my actions derive from that fact."
> - Curt
>
> Having said this, it would be unfair to claim an
> extreme position and
> propose that such a dialogue would not be possible.
> Walter Benjamin is
> polemical due to his combination of theology and
> Marxist philosophy. He
> constantly struggled between the two and this
> becomes quite obvious
> throughout his books (See "The task of the
> Translator" in Illuminations:
>
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/benja.htm).
> If anyone is
> interested in looking further into this tension, I
> recommend The Postmodern
> Bible Reader:
> http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0631219625
> It contains interesting essays on how the bible has
> been read by many
> semioticians and other postructuralists in the 20th
> Century and possible
> religious interpretations of their essays.
>
> I hope that helps clarify my ever-changing
> ideological position.
>
> SiU.
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Web Art in the Whitney
Biennial?
> Eduardo -it absolutely *wasn't* a pop at you.
> It occured to me after I posted that it might read
> like that and although I think I would have
> disagreemnets with you it was not those I was
> expressing there.
Hey Michael,
Fine, Thanks for clarifying that. I am also glad you understand why I
considered your response a pop at me.
In any case, I think the dialogue is interesting, and in the end is about
the exchange of ideas more than anything. As you noticed, I did send some
material that is relelvant to your interests at the end of my response.
SiU.
Eduardo N.