. community —

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

Comments

brad brace April 24 2007 09:08Reply

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

Andres Manniste April 25 2007 08:05Reply

I came across your thread. I have noticed that here, in Quebec, there are millions of dollars available through official channels (Hexagram, SAT) for the new media. Now that kind of funding is generally not distributed without an expectation of some return…I surmise, a practical application for business interests. These millions of dollars have coloured the attitude of government funding agencies. I don't really think that they have a clue of what internet art is. They prefer to deal with people they understand. I also had the unfortunate experience of being refused without adjudication a couple of years ago (The jury seemed to be unaware of a thing as simple as a site counter and assumed that one might not notice that the work was not looked at). I wouldn't hold my breath and expect the situation to change.

A

Max Herman April 25 2007 10:57Reply

These are not trivial issues, and I agree for a few reasons it is unhelpful
to expect these large sectors to change. It is not easy to do what they do
and it is not entirely unneeded either. Some degree of forgiveness is not
counterproductive to change. Plus the world is in a fragile state and the
less upheavals and more predictability the better, within reason.

Extrapolating from Ferguson's argument, the best ways to avoid global total
war are to avoid its primary cause–the deadly coincidence of ethnic
conflict, economic volatility, and collapse of empires. Thus you might say
there are tremendous incentives to promote ethnic tolerance, economic
stability, and non-collapse of empires. (David Remnick of the New Yorker
says there are no more empires, but Ferguson considers the U.S., Russia, and
China to all be active empires.)

Shutting out new art is a good plan in a high percentage of cases, because
new art is almost always either low in quality or a cause of volatility (as
by demagogic attempts at the false overcoming of culture). The very rare
case would be art of high quality which either reduced volatility (risk or
danger) or presented a level of risk that was worth the potential benefit.
Thus, art that offered good potential gains toward ethnic tolerance and
non-collapse of empires with only a small risk to narrow areas economic
stability could warrant greater appreciation.

Yet it is very arguable that the risk levels in all of these areas are so
high that the new art-historical period will remain too risky for wide
acceptance until several years or even decades pass. Whether this is true
or false, it is in either case best to create the best quality possible
rather than harbor resentment of unresponsive institutions.

In addition to patience, it is very well to work on making clearer why
Networkism is advantageous in avoiding global total war, or can minimize
risks, or is of a tolerable risk. The greater part of this task is to
consciously and assiduously define visions of Networkism that meet these
criteria. So in this regard I see some connection to the recent PBS program
"America at a Crossroads" http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/, which
illustrates how predominant social systems that do not permit even the basic
levels of modern aesthetic evolution (such as education for women or freedom
of worship) to occur. These issues of critical relevance cannot be ignored
in either art or arts administration.

On the positive viewpoint, academia and large organizations have no monopoly
on artistic production or writing etc., and ever-decreasing costs of
production allow for low-overhead entrepreneurialism. As Stephen Dedalus
stated, "let the dead bury the dead, and let the dead marry the dead."


>From: Andres Manniste <andresmanniste@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Andres Manniste <andresmanniste@gmail.com>
>To: list@rhizome.org
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Canada Council Club ref no 3215-06-0101 (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:05:03 -0700
>
>I came across your thread. I have noticed that here, in Quebec, there are
>millions of dollars available through official channels (Hexagram, SAT) for
>the new media. Now that kind of funding is generally not distributed
>without an expectation of some return…I surmise, a practical application
>for business interests. These millions of dollars have coloured the
>attitude of government funding agencies. I don't really think that they
>have a clue of what internet art is. They prefer to deal with people they
>understand. I also had the unfortunate experience of being refused without
>adjudication a couple of years ago (The jury seemed to be unaware of a
>thing as simple as a site counter and assumed that one might not notice
>that the work was not looked at). I wouldn't hold my breath and expect the
>situation to change.
>
>A
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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