I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions again..

i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been more fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see things so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i thought it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only somewhat similar thank you dv

—–Original message—–
From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
To: rhizome [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions again..

> HI Lauren, all
> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> commissions process for next year.
> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> find one of the great irritations in life is
> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> *actual* course of the way work develops.
>
> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> a life anyway :)
>
> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> significant connection between the two things.
>
> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> previous year.
> This would level the playing field considerably but
> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> being serious as an artist.
> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> "names" -is the work any good?
> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> name so these can always be Googled up …
>
> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> piece to develop.
>
> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> much more artist friendly.
> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> best
> michael
>
> +
> -> 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
>