Re: Opposites

As coordinator of the ArtBase, I have to say that I found Shaun'sproject intriguing enough to index in our archive.
Of course, such choices are admittedly subjective, so I'm sending thisnot as a representative of Rhizome, per se, but as an individual whohad a response to this work. In fact, I will first say that I believethat we could be dealing with a difference in personal taste.Afterall, if anyone ever described something I'd made as "a powerpoint presentation gone mad," I'd be flattered.
I don't subscribe to the notion that something has to be the newest ormost innovative application of technology in order to be interestingor of value. I also believe, as a scholar of new media, that the "new"in that moniker has become simply a placeholder, some decades afterthis type of production began. Granted, some working in the fieldpersist in using newer technologies than those of their peers, but inthe grand scheme of things, this is a minor issue to me.
Simply put, Shaun created a poetic piece with a "visual component" andhe obviously used a number of technologies to do so. (Afterall,writing, itself, is a technology, to say nothing of video and computeranimation.) It's terribly tired to compare new media to painting, butthis asking for some specific type/level of technology feels likediscriminating against painters–or challenging their status assuch–because they used one type of paint or another, or made one typeof mark or another with their brush.
I think that you actually ask two separate questions, below: "What isthe message?" and "Why is this considered new media art?" I thinkit's very important to keep these questions separate. On the questionof the message, I too would enjoy hearing more from Shaun about whatthis piece says, and why. But while there is an inherent relationbetween what is said and how it's said, I don't think that theefficacy of the message should be linked to the novelty of the piece,particularly when the "degree of novelty" is used as the basis foraesthetic discrimination.
Tore, the rhetoric of your question seems to follow this train ofthought: this piece is not "advanced;" if it's not advanced, it's not"important." I can think of many very important works that are nolonger technologically "advanced" and many others, within the field ofmedia art, that were importantly never too "advanced."
But, of course, I can't speak to Shaun's intent.
Incidentally, it is probably worth mentioning that this piece is quitesimilar to "The Struggle Continues," by YOUNG-HAE CHANG HEAVYINDUSTRIES, archived here by Rhizome:http://www.rhizome.org/artbase/2427/THE_STRUGGLE_mac.html
In 2001, this piece was nominated for a Webby (my memory is fuzzy inmy old age, but I think it may even have won) and some of the jurorsargued that this piece shouldn't be considered, because it wasn't"really" net art, but was "just a video." (Now these were seasonedjurors–I remember that Mark Tribe, Jon Ippolito, and Sara Diamondwere among them, though I don't remember each person's position.) Fouryears later, a piece by the same artist, with many of the same formalqualities, was included in Rhizome Artbase 101, the ten-year survey ofinternet art: http://www.rhizome.org/artbase101.rhiz
So even the question of newness (and media specificity) isn't so new.I don't suppose I need to tell you that these conversations were alsohad long before the internet existed.
Marisa

On 10/31/05, tore terrasi <[email protected]> wrote:> well shaun, i appreciate the work, but i don't really see the art form in this. It seems like a power point presentation gone mad. Yea, the words oppose each other, and sometimes the black and white do too. Well so what. What is the message?: that some things have opposites. Why is this considered new media art. It doesn't really reach the potentials of new media, pushes no boundaries. The aesthetic is fairly simple so i'm pretty sure that there are not advanced software at work. I guess what i'm asking is, why is this art you created so important that you decided to post it? I would also like to know if anyone critiqued this…beyond the "it's nice…i like it" from your friends. What do strangers think of this?>>>> Shaun wrote:>> > Opposites

i appreciate you email. (really). It clearly took time
> and thought to write the response. I didn't really
> intend for my statements to be seen as an attack on
> the work, though i can see that side of the coin as
> well. What i really intended was to pose questions in
> order to critique the peice. Artists, all artists,
> show their work not just to display and recieve
> congrats, but to better their art and to furthur their
> intellect. There is a response option to all the links
> posted on Rhizome. I understand such links to be
> opinionated, and occasionally harsh.
>
> There is a little personal taste involved. It is true.
> I am also an artist. One who deals a great deal with
> typography, text and animation (both video and
> computer generated imagery). I agree with you in that
> New media art need not be "high tech" or "software
> sophisticated". In fact one of my best and favorite
> peices is extremely simple in aesthetic and
> technology, however how i used the low technology and
> what i did with the peice is what makes it
> interesting.
>
> Personally speaking i did not care for shaun's peice
> BUT this does not mean i can't appreciate it, the work
> that went into it, or him/her as an artist. I just
> think this specific peice missed the boat. The message
> is either way over my head, or way under my feet.
>
> Just because something combines text (poetic word) and
> visual and some form of technology does not
> necissarliy mean it is contributing to poetry,new
> media art/or media art if you want to loose the new
> tag, or art in general.
>
> To be more specific in my critique, i felt the
> typography was aweful. The font didn't really
> emphasize or contrast the message being delivered. i
> found the pacing of the video to off, audible and
> visual events did not match up properly. I doubt that
> was the intent. I also felt there was no punchline
> (not to say it was a joke), just to say that i walked
> away from the peice expecting a conclusion that never
> came…which in some art is fine, even time based art
> (a conclusionless timebased art is something i often
> create). However if the message is suppose to be
> continous or looping or open ended, I didn't feel it
> was communicating that effectively.
>
> Neither the content nor the aesthetic…really
> anything about the peice was new to art, poetry or new
> media. The content evolved directly out the Concrete
> poetry movements of the 40's and gave it a modern
> medium (which is fine), but i do believe that the work
> is about 30 years behind it's time. I feel this way
> about many "new media artists". It seems to me - and
> this is strictly the view of one insignificant
> individual (me) - that all too often artist learn 1
> thing on a computer and then create art from that and
> label it new media. I feel that would be the
> equivilant of me learning 1 thing about painting, like
> how to squeeze it out of the tube, and call my work
> "painting". Most other painter would disagree with me.
>
>
> So i would really like to hear more from shaun and put
> me in my place. I WANT for there to be more to this
> peice….so i can expand my understanding of art. I
> would like to create a dialogue bewteen artist and
> public in the name of betterment.
>
> Art is an opinionated field. Sometimes we have to
> accept that not all opinions are positive.






Marisa Olson wrote:

> As coordinator of the ArtBase, I have to say that I found
> Shaun'sproject intriguing enough to index in our archive.
> Of course, such choices are admittedly subjective, so I'm sending
> thisnot as a representative of Rhizome, per se, but as an individual
> whohad a response to this work. In fact, I will first say that I
> believethat we could be dealing with a difference in personal
> taste.Afterall, if anyone ever described something I'd made as "a
> powerpoint presentation gone mad," I'd be flattered.
> I don't subscribe to the notion that something has to be the newest
> ormost innovative application of technology in order to be
> interestingor of value. I also believe, as a scholar of new media,
> that the "new"in that moniker has become simply a placeholder, some
> decades afterthis type of production began. Granted, some working in
> the fieldpersist in using newer technologies than those of their
> peers, but inthe grand scheme of things, this is a minor issue to me.
> Simply put, Shaun created a poetic piece with a "visual component"
> andhe obviously used a number of technologies to do so.
> (Afterall,writing, itself, is a technology, to say nothing of video
> and computeranimation.) It's terribly tired to compare new media to
> painting, butthis asking for some specific type/level of technology
> feels likediscriminating against painters–or challenging their status
> assuch–because they used one type of paint or another, or made one
> typeof mark or another with their brush.
> I think that you actually ask two separate questions, below: "What
> isthe message?" and "Why is this considered new media art?" I
> thinkit's very important to keep these questions separate. On the
> questionof the message, I too would enjoy hearing more from Shaun
> about whatthis piece says, and why. But while there is an inherent
> relationbetween what is said and how it's said, I don't think that
> theefficacy of the message should be linked to the novelty of the
> piece,particularly when the "degree of novelty" is used as the basis
> foraesthetic discrimination.
> Tore, the rhetoric of your question seems to follow this train
> ofthought: this piece is not "advanced;" if it's not advanced, it's
> not"important." I can think of many very important works that are
> nolonger technologically "advanced" and many others, within the field
> ofmedia art, that were importantly never too "advanced."
> But, of course, I can't speak to Shaun's intent.
> Incidentally, it is probably worth mentioning that this piece is
> quitesimilar to "The Struggle Continues," by YOUNG-HAE CHANG
> HEAVYINDUSTRIES, archived here by
> Rhizome:http://www.rhizome.org/artbase/2427/THE_STRUGGLE_mac.html
> In 2001, this piece was nominated for a Webby (my memory is fuzzy inmy
> old age, but I think it may even have won) and some of the
> jurorsargued that this piece shouldn't be considered, because it
> wasn't"really" net art, but was "just a video." (Now these were
> seasonedjurors–I remember that Mark Tribe, Jon Ippolito, and Sara
> Diamondwere among them, though I don't remember each person's
> position.) Fouryears later, a piece by the same artist, with many of
> the same formalqualities, was included in Rhizome Artbase 101, the
> ten-year survey ofinternet art: http://www.rhizome.org/artbase101.rhiz
> So even the question of newness (and media specificity) isn't so new.I
> don't suppose I need to tell you that these conversations were alsohad
> long before the internet existed.
> Marisa
>
> On 10/31/05, tore terrasi <[email protected]> wrote:> well shaun,
> i appreciate the work, but i don't really see the art form in this. It
> seems like a power point presentation gone mad. Yea, the words oppose
> each other, and sometimes the black and white do too. Well so what.
> What is the message?: that some things have opposites. Why is this
> considered new media art. It doesn't really reach the potentials of
> new media, pushes no boundaries. The aesthetic is fairly simple so i'm
> pretty sure that there are not advanced software at work. I guess what
> i'm asking is, why is this art you created so important that you
> decided to post it? I would also like to know if anyone critiqued
> this…beyond the "it's nice…i like it" from your friends. What do
> strangers think of this?>>>> Shaun wrote:>> > Opposites � Is a text
> based poem that investigates opposites or> > differences in the form
> of text (words), sound/silence, objects,> > shapes, pictures, figures,
> people, ideas, perceptions & colours.> > Another theme of the work is
> that opposites can attract, like male &> > female or positive &
> negative. Through further examination of the term> > opposites it is
> clear that a whole genre can be exposed & explored.> +> -> post:
> [email protected]> -> questions: [email protected]> ->
> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz>
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are
> subject to the terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available
> online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>