Eric,
> New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spirit,
> for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right).
is the above statement true? and if so, is it any different than it ever
was?
> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been purged
> from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the
> revitalized DIA foundation?
wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an artist, and
does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one way or another (at
least his pre- mass portrait period art)
> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce or
> fight for our personal experiences.
weren't michelangelo, titian and rubens and david's world driven by the same
commercial and military spirit (and far more directly, too), and didn't they
both acquiese and fight for their personal experiences?
> Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
> Eric
> +
just asking,
Zev
Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk
ps. getting both video commissions and purely commercial web work has helped
both my spirits and art a lot.
Re: the artist's spirit
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Maybe it just comes down to the competitiveness of human nature.
Acceptance is important but to come out on top in an honorable way does do
wonders for the concept of the self.
On 2/21/06 1:10 AM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eric,
>
>> New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spirit,
>> for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right).
>
> is the above statement true? and if so, is it any different than it ever
> was?
>
>> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been purged
>> from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the
>> revitalized DIA foundation?
>
> wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an artist, and
> does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one way or another (at
> least his pre- mass portrait period art)
>
>> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce or
>> fight for our personal experiences.
>
> weren't michelangelo, titian and rubens and david's world driven by the same
> commercial and military spirit (and far more directly, too), and didn't they
> both acquiese and fight for their personal experiences?
>
>> Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
>> Eric
>> +
>
> just asking,
>
> Zev
> Zev Robinson
> www.artafterscience.com
> www.zrdesign.co.uk
>
> ps. getting both video commissions and purely commercial web work has helped
> both my spirits and art a lot.
>
>
> +
> -> 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
–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222
http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524
<div>"wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an
artist, and <BR>does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one
way or another (at <BR>least his pre- mass portrait period art)"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[While I am hesitant to support it,] this cynical position is drawn
out in full by photographer Nat Finkelstein in his book on Warhol.
Perhaps Finkelstein went to far; he ends up calling him something like
a psychic vampire in a plastic pop bubble in upscale New York, while
the Watts / Birmingham riots, Vietnam War, and so on were roiling
around the rest of America. Hmm. At any rate, it's at least got juicy
reportage on Warhol's life–I am still mystified at how Andy felt so
nervous around poor people / blacks / etc., though I am given to
understand that he emerged from 'the ghetto.'</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Great photos; a short & sweet 'airplane read.'</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vijay<BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>——– Original Message ——–<BR>Subject:
RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit<BR>From: "Zev Robinson"
<[email protected]><BR>Date: Mon, February 20, 2006 11:10
pm<BR>To: "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]><BR><BR>Eric,<BR><BR>> New media and the Art
world are driven by a commercial/military spirit, <BR>> for or
agianst( as long as you spell my name right).<BR><BR>is the above
statement true? and if so, is it any different than it ever
<BR>was?<BR><BR>> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his
Irony had been purged <BR>> from the Warhol foundation. Would
Smithson accept support from the <BR>> revitalized DIA
foundation?<BR><BR>wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as
ever was an artist, and <BR>does this necessarily mean anything about
his art, one way or another (at <BR>least his pre- mass portrait period
art)<BR><BR>> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we
can acquiesce or<BR>> fight for our personal
experiences.<BR><BR>weren't michelangelo, titian and rubens and david's
world driven by the same <BR>commercial and military spirit (and far
more directly, too), and didn't they <BR>both acquiese and fight for
their personal experiences?<BR><BR>> Incorporate the individual or
let the network fall.<BR>> Eric<BR>> +<BR><BR>just
asking,<BR><BR>Zev<BR>Zev
Robinson<BR>www.artafterscience.com<BR>www.zrdesign.co.uk<BR><BR>ps.
getting both video commissions and purely commercial web work has
helped <BR>both my spirits and art a lot.<BR><BR><BR>+<BR>-> post:
[email protected]<BR>-> questions: [email protected]<BR>->
subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz<BR>-> give:
http://rhizome.org/support<BR>+<BR>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject
to the terms set out in the<BR>Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php </BLOCKQUOTE>
can't disagree with what you say, but having positive sense of self isn't
always necessary to making art, or good art. see Vijay's other post on
Warhol, or think about a lot of artists you may admire as artists but not
necessarily want to invite over for dinner or have as friends. Caravaggio
killed someone over a tennis match, but I don't play tennis.
Z
—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
> Maybe it just comes down to the competitiveness of human nature.
> Acceptance is important but to come out on top in an honorable way does do
> wonders for the concept of the self.
>
>
> On 2/21/06 1:10 AM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Eric,
>>
>>> New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spirit,
>>> for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right).
>>
>> is the above statement true? and if so, is it any different than it ever
>> was?
>>
>>> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been purged
>>> from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the
>>> revitalized DIA foundation?
>>
>> wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an artist, and
>> does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one way or another (at
>> least his pre- mass portrait period art)
>>
>>> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce or
>>> fight for our personal experiences.
>>
>> weren't michelangelo, titian and rubens and david's world driven by the
>> same
>> commercial and military spirit (and far more directly, too), and didn't
>> they
>> both acquiese and fight for their personal experiences?
>>
>>> Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
>>> Eric
>>> +
>>
>> just asking,
>>
>> Zev
>> Zev Robinson
>> www.artafterscience.com
>> www.zrdesign.co.uk
>>
>> ps. getting both video commissions and purely commercial web work has
>> helped
>> both my spirits and art a lot.
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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
>
my position wasn't meant to be cynical at all. just that, as always, the re=
lationship between art, the self, and the larger cultural (in the broad sen=
se of the word) context is an extremely complex one. my problem with Eric's=
and others' statements isn't necessarily whether I agree or disagree, just=
that it deters an understanding of complexity of things.
warhol would probably the first to admit it.
and there's a bit of warhol in us all, i would guess.
Zev
—– Original Message —–
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
"wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an artist, an=
d
does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one way or another (at=
least his pre- mass portrait period art)"
[While I am hesitant to support it,] this cynical position is drawn out i=
n full by photographer Nat Finkelstein in his book on Warhol. Perhaps Finke=
lstein went to far; he ends up calling him something like a psychic vampire=
in a plastic pop bubble in upscale New York, while the Watts / Birmingham =
riots, Vietnam War, and so on were roiling around the rest of America. Hmm.=
At any rate, it's at least got juicy reportage on Warhol's life–I am stil=
l mystified at how Andy felt so nervous around poor people / blacks / etc.,=
though I am given to understand that he emerged from 'the ghetto.'
Great photos; a short & sweet 'airplane read.'
Vijay
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
From: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, February 20, 2006 11:10 pm
To: "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Eric,
> New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spir=
it,
> for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right).
is the above statement true? and if so, is it any different than it eve=
r
was?
> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been pur=
ged
> from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the
> revitalized DIA foundation?
wasn't Warhol as driven by a commercial spirit as ever was an artist, a=
nd
does this necessarily mean anything about his art, one way or another (=
at
least his pre- mass portrait period art)
> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce =
or
> fight for our personal experiences.
weren't michelangelo, titian and rubens and david's world driven by the=
same
commercial and military spirit (and far more directly, too), and didn't=
they
both acquiese and fight for their personal experiences?
> Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
> Eric
> +
just asking,
Zev
Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk
ps. getting both video commissions and purely commercial web work has h=
elped
both my spirits and art a lot.
+
-> 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=
+ -> post: [email protected] -> questions: [email protected] -> subscribe/u=
nsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz -> give: http://r=
hizome.org/support + Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set ou=
t in the Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/2=
9.php
That
Quoting Lee Wells <[email protected]>:
> Maybe it just comes down to the competitiveness of human nature.
> Acceptance is important but to come out on top in an honorable way does do
> wonders for the concept of the self.
Never give a sucker an even break.
Unless you're breaking him in two.
- Rob.
for as much as I used to like graffiti when it was out on the streets, and
especially on the nyc trains, I think Haring's art is very much about
instant gratification, and about being famous, and tho I didn't know about
what you say about him below, it doesn't surprise me.
new trains with anti graffiti surfaces were brought in, taking away one form
of visual art for a lot of people who didn't have access to galleries or
moma, while keith haring kept it alive, but safe, for people who would go to
moma but not take a train out to Brooklyn or the Bronx.
I understand what your saying, Lee, that an artists' behaviour and attitude
can affect how we see him or her. however, if you judge haring's art by his
personal acts, horrible as they are, and if you extend that to every artist
that was a racist, or misogynist, or supported a despotic political regime,
or a violent drunk or drug addict, or simply manipulative and selfish
egomaniac, then the museum walls would soon be *almost* bare.
maybe that would be a good thing, but I like museums.
Zev
—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
That
A new type of museum must be formed.
On 2/21/06 1:19 PM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> for as much as I used to like graffiti when it was out on the streets, and
> especially on the nyc trains, I think Haring's art is very much about
> instant gratification, and about being famous, and tho I didn't know about
> what you say about him below, it doesn't surprise me.
>
> new trains with anti graffiti surfaces were brought in, taking away one form
> of visual art for a lot of people who didn't have access to galleries or
> moma, while keith haring kept it alive, but safe, for people who would go to
> moma but not take a train out to Brooklyn or the Bronx.
>
> I understand what your saying, Lee, that an artists' behaviour and attitude
> can affect how we see him or her. however, if you judge haring's art by his
> personal acts, horrible as they are, and if you extend that to every artist
> that was a racist, or misogynist, or supported a despotic political regime,
> or a violent drunk or drug addict, or simply manipulative and selfish
> egomaniac, then the museum walls would soon be *almost* bare.
>
> maybe that would be a good thing, but I like museums.
>
> Zev
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
> To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
>
>
>
> That
All right -
Haring spread AIDS, Warhol was a crass capitalist, Picasso was a
womanizer, and I'm sure that there are a few in New Media who have
their own sins to atone for. The list goes on.
One thing that I have found is that the powerful almost invariably have
some pretty visible fault (ego, arrogance, hubris, ruthlessness,
violence, aggression) which are part and parcel of the reason why they
have their recognition. I mean, we're just finding out that George
Washington was ruthless in his own right, as were most of the founders
of the US (not surprising).
Greatness and hubris often go hand in hand, except in small exceptions.
Is the goal of human enterprise to create sustainability, and thus try
to create a new paradigm to prevent these aspects of human nature.
>
> Greatness and hubris often go hand in hand, except in small exceptions.
> Is the goal of human enterprise to create sustainability, and thus try
> to create a new paradigm to prevent these aspects of human nature.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/news/ntm3/ntm10-1-15.asp
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/exhibitionInfo/exhibition/
14599
i like the old type, too.
z
—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
A new type of museum must be formed.
On 2/21/06 1:19 PM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> for as much as I used to like graffiti when it was out on the streets, and
> especially on the nyc trains, I think Haring's art is very much about
> instant gratification, and about being famous, and tho I didn't know about
> what you say about him below, it doesn't surprise me.
>
> new trains with anti graffiti surfaces were brought in, taking away one
> form
> of visual art for a lot of people who didn't have access to galleries or
> moma, while keith haring kept it alive, but safe, for people who would go
> to
> moma but not take a train out to Brooklyn or the Bronx.
>
> I understand what your saying, Lee, that an artists' behaviour and
> attitude
> can affect how we see him or her. however, if you judge haring's art by
> his
> personal acts, horrible as they are, and if you extend that to every
> artist
> that was a racist, or misogynist, or supported a despotic political
> regime,
> or a violent drunk or drug addict, or simply manipulative and selfish
> egomaniac, then the museum walls would soon be *almost* bare.
>
> maybe that would be a good thing, but I like museums.
>
> Zev
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
> To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
>
>
>
> That
what about great cute-ness?
marc
>All right -
>Haring spread AIDS, Warhol was a crass capitalist, Picasso was a
>womanizer, and I'm sure that there are a few in New Media who have
>their own sins to atone for. The list goes on.
>
>One thing that I have found is that the powerful almost invariably have
>some pretty visible fault (ego, arrogance, hubris, ruthlessness,
>violence, aggression) which are part and parcel of the reason why they
>have their recognition. I mean, we're just finding out that George
>Washington was ruthless in his own right, as were most of the founders
>of the US (not surprising).
>
>Greatness and hubris often go hand in hand, except in small exceptions.
>Is the goal of human enterprise to create sustainability, and thus try
>to create a new paradigm to prevent these aspects of human nature.
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
Me too.
On 2/21/06 4:14 PM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> i like the old type, too.
>
> z
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
> To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
>
>
>
> A new type of museum must be formed.
>
> On 2/21/06 1:19 PM, "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> for as much as I used to like graffiti when it was out on the streets, and
>> especially on the nyc trains, I think Haring's art is very much about
>> instant gratification, and about being famous, and tho I didn't know about
>> what you say about him below, it doesn't surprise me.
>>
>> new trains with anti graffiti surfaces were brought in, taking away one
>> form
>> of visual art for a lot of people who didn't have access to galleries or
>> moma, while keith haring kept it alive, but safe, for people who would go
>> to
>> moma but not take a train out to Brooklyn or the Bronx.
>>
>> I understand what your saying, Lee, that an artists' behaviour and
>> attitude
>> can affect how we see him or her. however, if you judge haring's art by
>> his
>> personal acts, horrible as they are, and if you extend that to every
>> artist
>> that was a racist, or misogynist, or supported a despotic political
>> regime,
>> or a violent drunk or drug addict, or simply manipulative and selfish
>> egomaniac, then the museum walls would soon be *almost* bare.
>>
>> maybe that would be a good thing, but I like museums.
>>
>> Zev
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Zev Robinson" <[email protected]>; "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>;
>> <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: the artist's spirit
>>
>>
>>
>> That