Arts Agencies: bogus-aid for the 'developed world'

brad brace wrote:

>
> Subject: Canada Council Club ref no 3215-06-0101 (fwd)
>
>
> After 35 years, I knew damn-well that you creepy,
> conspiring, incestuous, artworld-acolytes wouldn't fund my
> media project (even in this time of urgent-need), but
> returning my audiovisual support material with a snotty
> letter stating that the application was incomplete due to
> missing audiovisual support material–and so wouldn't even
> be adjudicated, is a new low. Do you actually get paid (with
> my tax-dollars) for this disservice?!
>
> /:b
>
> –
>
> Global Islands Project – ongoing series of multi-media
> pdf-ebooks – a pastoral, pictorial and phonic elicitation
> of island parameters.
>
> Your (Art)world is based on mutual relief at your common
> corruption. Maybe some cultures are based on even worse. But
> that wouldn't change the bad faith of it and as years go by,
> you wake at night in terror of your whole life being an act
> of bad faith, where everything is self-interest and nothing
> more, where every human interaction is driven by a silent,
> even subconscious calculation of some ulterior motive, to
> the point that a sea of bad faith has taken over your whole
> life, there's no small island left from which you can even
> try to build a bridge of good faith, because even that
> effort becomes suspect, even good faith is nothing but
> self-interested, even altruism is nothing but solipsistic,
> even your professed agonizing right here right now is
> nothing but a gesture, made to the conscience in order to
> assure it that it exists.
>
> http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/id.html
> http://bbrace.net/id.html
>
> Island 1.0 is Ambergris Caye, Belize
> Island 2.0 is Koh Si Chang, Thailand
> Island 3.0 is Lamu, Kenya
> Island 4.0 is Narikel Jingira, Bangladesh
>
> Global Islands Project:
>
> Island 1.0 -> http://bbrace.net/islands/island1/island1.html
> or http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/islands/island1/island1.html
> – over 800 images and hour-long audiotrack – 69mb – (acrobat 6)
>
> Island 2.0 -> http://bbrace.net/islands/island2/island2.html
> or http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/islands/island2/island2.html
> – over 535 images and hour-long audiotrack – 78mb – (acrobat 6)
>
>
> /:b
>

But Brad, you took delight in dissing Tom Sherman, a former member of the CC, and Arts Officer to boot, and now you're surprised by their decision?
You of all people should no better than to complain about government arts funding.
Look over the list of recipients from 10 yrs ago…, now tell me do you recognize any of the names?
Its a mugs game, and those mugs are pretty dour.
Keep doin what you do, and don't expect anything from the outside.
Eric

I'm going to this observation by Steve Dietz, who calls for a heroic effort on the part of a lucky new media artist.
http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html
Dietz, like many others is looking for the Jackson Pollack, The Willem deKooning of *Great Net Artists*.
At first read it seems like a simple request.
But think of yourself in the world we live in.
Who is great at what they do in any field?
I can't think of anyone.
There are no deKoonings or Warhols lurking in the wings.
The very idea of *greatness* is now a retro-subterfuge brought on by memories that never existed but it would sure be convenient for critics and old world art admins.
Like a good hit of meth or smack the feeling is fleeting and deceitful.
There can't be a great net artist in the distributed world, it's not only counter intuitive, it's blasphemy.
What good is a hero/heroine on a medium that defines DIY?
We don't need no fukin heroes in the 21st century, they always lead to depression and self loathing.
You are , as Beuys and Hacke pointed out yrs ago, the subject of your own creation.
Let it go, find alternative funding, and maybe, just maybe someone will evolve from your idea and pass it on to someone else.
7 billion people on the planet and Dietz is still looking for a hero, pathetic.
Eric

perhaps you didn't notice that the real focus in dietz's later net art curations had little to do with the art of the artists. instead, it was on the concept of the curation. in other words, the focus was on his work. he is not serious, therefore, in saying he sought great net art or net artists. his later curatorial work did not need or seek such art or artists.

ja
http://vispo.com