Cremaster web site

Posted by Rachel Greene | Sun Oct 19th 2003 2:08 p.m.

http://www.cremaster.net
True to form, every frame is beautiful....
  • void void | Sun Oct 19th 2003 8:01 p.m.
    He must have a really CREATIVE web master.

    say CHEESE!
    AE03.
    http://www.atomicelroy.com
  • marc garrett | Sun Oct 19th 2003 10:08 p.m.
    He must have really creative accountant...

    marc

    >
    > He must have a really CREATIVE web master.
    >
    >
    >
    > say CHEESE!
    > AE03.
    > http://www.atomicelroy.com
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 19th 2003 11:28 p.m.
    > He must have really creative accountant...
    >
    > marc

    I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay for
    it?

    ja
  • void void | Mon Oct 20th 2003 12:07 a.m.
    what's next,

    A Bjork video?

    SAY CHEESE!
    AE03
    atomicelroy.com
  • Lee Wells | Mon Oct 20th 2003 12:33 a.m.
    on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at jim@vispo.com wrote:

    >
    >> He must have really creative accountant...
    >>
    >> marc
    >
    > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay for
    > it?
    >
    > ja
    >

    It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.

    Lee

    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 20th 2003 5:31 a.m.
    > >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > >>
    > >> marc
    > >
    > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
    > > the end is to pay for it?
    > >
    > > ja
    >
    > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >
    > Lee

    And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.

    ja
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 20th 2003 11:03 a.m.
    These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.

    Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
    art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
    high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
    and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
    that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
    stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
    is a decent independent film budget.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    recall.)

    This web site is great at giving folks some clue as to the narrative
    and background of his films which can be a bit.. opaque?

    Personally I like his objects more than his movies which can be a bit
    long and boring. Most art video/film has a tendency to linger way to
    long on a particular shot and unfortunately Barney falls into this
    trap. I can forgive him this for two reasons, first, it seems a
    symptom of his genuine love of the images he's creating and secondly
    perhaps it's a reaction to the fast-cut aesthetic of the dominant
    media (to which I've been trained to enjoy so perhaps it's my fault I
    find it boring).

    But, I think the real key to Barney's work is that he's an extremely
    traditional artist, conservative in a way. I think he bemoans the
    loss of meta-narrative in our culture, that is, the place the Bible
    once held in western culture. He decided that to make art objects he
    needed to reference a meta-narrative so he created his own using the
    dominant narrative media of contemporary culture, film. So, instead
    of Jesus on the cross, we get Fion MacCumhail: The Case of the
    Entered Apprentice.

    The web site itself is a bit lame IMO. It could be much easier to
    navigate and there is no way to link to specific pages but that's
    flash for ya...

    At 1:31 AM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    >> >> He must have really creative accountant...
    >> >>
    >> >> marc
    >> >
    >> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
    >> > the end is to pay for it?
    >> >
    >> > ja
    >>
    >> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >>
    >> Lee
    >
    >And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.
    >
    >ja

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • marc garrett | Mon Oct 20th 2003 11:21 a.m.
    Hi T.Whid,

    When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
    enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
    that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
    needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
    dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?

    And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
    could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
    evenly spread.

    (no dis on the work tho...)

    marc

    > These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
    >
    > Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
    > art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
    > high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
    > and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
    > that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
    > stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
    > is a decent independent film budget.
    >
    > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    > recall.)
    >
    > This web site is great at giving folks some clue as to the narrative
    > and background of his films which can be a bit.. opaque?
    >
    > Personally I like his objects more than his movies which can be a bit
    > long and boring. Most art video/film has a tendency to linger way to
    > long on a particular shot and unfortunately Barney falls into this
    > trap. I can forgive him this for two reasons, first, it seems a
    > symptom of his genuine love of the images he's creating and secondly
    > perhaps it's a reaction to the fast-cut aesthetic of the dominant
    > media (to which I've been trained to enjoy so perhaps it's my fault I
    > find it boring).
    >
    > But, I think the real key to Barney's work is that he's an extremely
    > traditional artist, conservative in a way. I think he bemoans the
    > loss of meta-narrative in our culture, that is, the place the Bible
    > once held in western culture. He decided that to make art objects he
    > needed to reference a meta-narrative so he created his own using the
    > dominant narrative media of contemporary culture, film. So, instead
    > of Jesus on the cross, we get Fion MacCumhail: The Case of the
    > Entered Apprentice.
    >
    > The web site itself is a bit lame IMO. It could be much easier to
    > navigate and there is no way to link to specific pages but that's
    > flash for ya...
    >
    > At 1:31 AM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    > >
    > >> >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > >> >>
    > >> >> marc
    > >> >
    > >> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
    > >> > the end is to pay for it?
    > >> >
    > >> > ja
    > >>
    > >> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    > >>
    > >> Lee
    > >
    > >And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.
    > >
    > >ja
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 20th 2003 11:56 a.m.
    Hi Mark,

    good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
    on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
    put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
    by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
    prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
    you know how this stuff works..

    If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
    might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
    bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
    intensive projects.

    My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
    dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
    irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
    disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
    think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
    legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
    I see.

    It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
    funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
    millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
    point yet.

    At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
    >Hi T.Whid,
    >
    >When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
    >enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
    >that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
    >needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
    >dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
    >
    >And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
    >could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
    >evenly spread.
    >
    >(no dis on the work tho...)
    >
    >marc
    >
    >> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
    >>
    >> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
    >> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
    >> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
    >> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
    >> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
    >> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
    >> is a decent independent film budget.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon Oct 20th 2003 1:20 p.m.
    Concerning this:

    > >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > >>
    > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
    for
    > > it?
    >
    > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.

    I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
    imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to actually
    go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
    opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
    raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
    complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
    aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you would
    like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt the
    system is doesn't count.

    Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
    It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately ugly
    aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful and
    challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
    become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
    talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
    something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study in
    order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer you
    deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.

    Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
    Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to try"
    train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
    watching this conversation.

    Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be slow
    to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
    yours.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lee Wells" <lee@leewells.org>
    To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site

    > on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at jim@vispo.com wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > >>
    > >> marc
    > >
    > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
    for
    > > it?
    > >
    > > ja
    > >
    >
    > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >
    > Lee
    >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > 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 | Mon Oct 20th 2003 1:33 p.m.
    One less bomber a year injected into the national arts budget could go a
    long way. California almost completely eradicated its state funding for the
    arts to a measly $1,000,000. That includes the opera, theatre, ballet and
    museums. How much of that do you think is going to fund some socio-political
    net-artist much less a painter or sculptor?

    We are lucky to be in New York where when it comes to funding its
    practically raining opportunities. Unfortunately, unlike the 80's an artist
    that works in any media must be very good at what they do to gain access to
    the booty$$$.

    Barney and Gladstone are not looking for a handout from the NEA or NYFA.
    Gladstone doesn't have a problem acquiring the money for Barney's crazy
    ideas fr4om her very established client base. I would love a copy of her
    database. Gallery interns unite.

    For an artist (what??) 36 I think he is doing alright. I look forward to see
    what he is doing 25 years from now.

    Cheers,
    Lee

    on 10/20/03 10:56, t.whid at twhid@mteww.com wrote:

    > Hi Mark,
    >
    > good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
    > on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
    > put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
    > by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
    > prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
    > you know how this stuff works..
    >
    > If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
    > might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
    > bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
    > intensive projects.
    >
    > My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
    > dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
    > irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
    > disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
    > think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
    > legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
    > I see.
    >
    > It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
    > funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
    > millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
    > point yet.
    >
    >
    > At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
    >> Hi T.Whid,
    >>
    >> When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
    >> enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
    >> that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
    >> needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
    >> dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
    >>
    >> And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
    >> could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
    >> evenly spread.
    >>
    >> (no dis on the work tho...)
    >>
    >> marc
    >>
    >>> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
    >>>
    >>> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
    >>> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
    >>> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
    >>> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
    >>> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
    >>> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
    >>> is a decent independent film budget.
  • Lee Wells | Mon Oct 20th 2003 1:35 p.m.
    Two Thumbs Up

    Lee

    on 10/20/03 12:18, Eryk Salvaggio at eryk@maine.rr.com wrote:

    > Concerning this:
    >
    >>>> He must have really creative accountant...
    >>>>
    >>> I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
    > for
    >>> it?
    >>
    >> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >
    >
    > I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
    > imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to actually
    > go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
    > opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
    > raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
    > complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
    > aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you would
    > like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt the
    > system is doesn't count.
    >
    > Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
    > It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately ugly
    > aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful and
    > challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
    > become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
    > talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
    > something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study in
    > order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer you
    > deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.
    >
    > Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
    > Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to try"
    > train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
    > watching this conversation.
    >
    > Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be slow
    > to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
    > yours.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Lee Wells" <lee@leewells.org>
    > To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site
    >
    >
    >> on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at jim@vispo.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> He must have really creative accountant...
    >>>>
    >>>> marc
    >>>
    >>> I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
    > for
    >>> it?
    >>>
    >>> ja
    >>>
    >>
    >> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >>
    >> Lee
    >>
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Mon Oct 20th 2003 2:05 p.m.
    Hi T.Whid,

    I also think part of the issue here is that a meidated culture is much more
    vulnerable to more 'spectacled' sensations, not as a totality more in terms
    of information. Thus not actually going to be interested in subtext, context
    and things that demand a little more time to view or explore; not an option
    when one does not know how to. For mediation is a dictatory format therefor
    what is given is what is supposed to be.

    > My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
    > dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
    > irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
    > disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
    > think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
    > legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
    > I see.

    Like yourself, I am very pro art. Which is one of the reasons why I like to
    see a redistirbution of the power of art facility and practise, potentially
    funding as well. Which is kind of happening for some groups in the UK
    gadually (perhaps in the US as well) for those who have formed outside of
    institutional environments. Yet one (or group) has to be stubborn like
    ourselves to get to that point. Which brings about change for others as well
    in a 'soft group' capacity. Widening the field for all who wish to get
    involved in a more flexible level rather than structuralist based or
    centralized way.

    Of course many have just got fed up with trying to wait for that funding
    cheque and have decidied to stay totally independent of applying which can
    work also. We ended up funding ourselves independently just by designing and
    programming web sites and other bits, since 97 and survived without any cash
    quite chirpily for a while just so the site would run its own course without
    having to ask for anything - this means that if you apply for projects for
    cash and you don't get anyhting the site stays up and still active. We
    still work by this principle. So who ever is involved kind of has to believe
    in what they are up to in a collective sense because they, us will not earn
    anything out of it - but this also means that the site remains free for art
    to be seen without the confusion of cash crossing the wrong palms.

    In respect of artists getting cash for projects in the UK - I believe that
    we are a little more lucky here, for it is possible. You just have to get
    pass the usual suspects who are well connected institutionally who get all
    the art grants, which takes time if you do not wish to lick smelly brown
    holes - which we do not. So it has taken us longer because we have not
    compromised our bleliefs or art thiking or pratise to get stuff going.
    Truely a D.I.Y group. The other thing is, if you are around long enough
    sooner or later you are bound to be seen, which is not necessarily a
    positive reflection on the state of affairs regarding such issues but it
    does seem to happen over here.

    And I'll applaud as much
    > legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
    > I see.

    I applaud crossover also - but I would prefer a more grass roots crossover
    also - it effects more artists and empowers others more, rather than
    sungular cultural anomoly. I should add here that I do not mean just artists
    I also mean creative types who do not always fit into various canon based
    trajectories...

    > It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
    > funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
    > millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
    > point yet.

    I think it can be done and it is happening, the net art experience is very
    much part of that wave...as in organizational set ups, and every now and
    then cash comes their way as well. But yes, money is not everything - but it
    can go a long way, and it needs to be spread out more thinly than in just a
    few clumpy, sweaty hands.

    marc

    > Hi Mark,
    >
    > good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
    > on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
    > put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
    > by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
    > prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
    > you know how this stuff works..
    >
    > If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
    > might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
    > bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
    > intensive projects.
    >
    > My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
    > dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
    > irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
    > disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
    > think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
    > legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
    > I see.
    >
    > It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
    > funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
    > millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
    > point yet.
    >
    >
    > At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
    > >Hi T.Whid,
    > >
    > >When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
    > >enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that
    during
    > >that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
    > >needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
    > >dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
    > >
    > >And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
    > >could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
    > >evenly spread.
    > >
    > >(no dis on the work tho...)
    > >
    > >marc
    > >
    > >> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather
    pathetic.
    > >>
    > >> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
    > >> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
    > >> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
    > >> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
    > >> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
    > >> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
    > >> is a decent independent film budget.
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • void void | Mon Oct 20th 2003 3:59 p.m.
    WOW!
    I thought we were talking about a web site! ( which has been up for quite a while, btw.)

    why are artists so defensive about Barney's work? Yes it's massive, yes it's rich, yes no one else in film is doing the exact same stuff. To me it represents the SUPERSIZE mentality that sweeps the nation. The hollywood seduction. Peter Greenaway, I think, is more adpet at it, even if he's not in Barney's generation! Tulse Luper's Suitcases is just as massive, well shot with just as many STARS dahlink!

    to make such a big deal about a purple dinosaur, what's the world comming to!

    say cheese!
    AE03.
    atomicelroy.com
  • marc garrett | Mon Oct 20th 2003 4:28 p.m.
    Hi Eryk,

    When I visited the exhibition itself I thought that the multi-narrative was
    amazing, yet a niggling doubt was forging its way in my cranium regarding a
    rather over-blown fluffed up bunny...still it's beautiful and that is the
    main thing.

    marc

    > Concerning this:
    >
    > > >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > > >>
    > > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
    pay
    > for
    > > > it?
    > >
    > > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    >
    >
    > I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
    > imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to
    actually
    > go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
    > opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
    > raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
    > complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
    > aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you
    would
    > like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt
    the
    > system is doesn't count.
    >
    > Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
    > It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately
    ugly
    > aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful
    and
    > challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
    > become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
    > talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
    > something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study
    in
    > order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer
    you
    > deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.
    >
    > Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
    > Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to
    try"
    > train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
    > watching this conversation.
    >
    > Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be
    slow
    > to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
    > yours.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Lee Wells" <lee@leewells.org>
    > To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site
    >
    >
    > > on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at jim@vispo.com wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >> He must have really creative accountant...
    > > >>
    > > >> marc
    > > >
    > > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
    pay
    > for
    > > > it?
    > > >
    > > > ja
    > > >
    > >
    > > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
    > >
    > > Lee
    > >
    > > >
    > > > +
    > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > > +
    > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 20th 2003 8:20 p.m.
    > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    > recall.)

    I don't live in New York or the States, so Barney's work is kind of low on
    my radar. "Greatest artist of his generation." Sounds pretty rhetorical to
    me, t.whid. What I saw of the web site so far, I've seen many better web
    sites. It is well done, though. I watched the film on the site. 'Ultra
    American?' Homage to excess? The notion of "beauty" I see there is
    excessive. Ziegfield follies etc.

    But will have another look.

    ja
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 20th 2003 8:52 p.m.
    > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    > recall.)

    i recall reading, some years ago, in the intro to a south african anthology
    of poetry (edited by uli bier if i recall correctly) something like 'without
    making any pathetic generalizations, it must be acknowledged that there is
    now a world poetry.'

    yet for the most part, art is a local phenomenon. eternally local. yet there
    is on the net a kind of internationalist approach in net.art. not to suggest
    that we know the same net.artists. we don't. but one is bound to know of
    more foreign net.artist from a wider range of countries than in arts where
    communications are not as easily international. four degrees of freedom,
    say, rather than eight in print.

    some years ago i wrote a thing i titled 'the impossibility of the mere
    existence of the great works of the late twentieth century'. not that there
    isn't exciting, 'great' work being done, but what makes sense and is 'great'
    in one place may not be so great elsewhere.

    dispersion. proliferation. synthesis. fracture. connection.

    i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
    example.

    'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to me,
    t.whid.

    ja
  • marc garrett | Mon Oct 20th 2003 9:52 p.m.
    Hi Jim,

    >i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
    example.

    Yes, I kind of have the same feeling as the above...this for is very much
    the crux of the matter.

    marc

    >
    > > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    > > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    > > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    > > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    > > recall.)
    >
    > i recall reading, some years ago, in the intro to a south african
    anthology
    > of poetry (edited by uli bier if i recall correctly) something like
    'without
    > making any pathetic generalizations, it must be acknowledged that there is
    > now a world poetry.'
    >
    > yet for the most part, art is a local phenomenon. eternally local. yet
    there
    > is on the net a kind of internationalist approach in net.art. not to
    suggest
    > that we know the same net.artists. we don't. but one is bound to know of
    > more foreign net.artist from a wider range of countries than in arts where
    > communications are not as easily international. four degrees of freedom,
    > say, rather than eight in print.
    >
    > some years ago i wrote a thing i titled 'the impossibility of the mere
    > existence of the great works of the late twentieth century'. not that
    there
    > isn't exciting, 'great' work being done, but what makes sense and is
    'great'
    > in one place may not be so great elsewhere.
    >
    > dispersion. proliferation. synthesis. fracture. connection.
    >
    > i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
    > example.
    >
    > 'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to
    me,
    > t.whid.
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • MTAA | Tue Oct 21st 2003 10:32 a.m.
    Hi Jim,

    it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
    reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
    criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
    magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.

    it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

    cya

    >> I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
    >> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    >> didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
    >> his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
    >> recall.)
    >
    >I don't live in New York or the States, so Barney's work is kind of low on
    >my radar. "Greatest artist of his generation." Sounds pretty rhetorical to
    >me, t.whid. What I saw of the web site so far, I've seen many better web
    >sites. It is well done, though. I watched the film on the site. 'Ultra
    >American?' Homage to excess? The notion of "beauty" I see there is
    >excessive. Ziegfield follies etc.
    >
    >But will have another look.
    >
    >ja

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • MTAA | Tue Oct 21st 2003 10:36 a.m.
    At 4:51 PM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to me,
    >t.whid.
    >
    >ja
    >

    more like american art spam.

    cya

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • void void | Tue Oct 21st 2003 6:31 p.m.
    if there is a greater
    >> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
    >> didn't want to like Barney, ( THEN DON"T it's ok.)

    I've seen his work... I like him, but he's just not that great!

    the whole AMERIspam idea is right on!
    IT"S FRICKIN PUBLICITY written by a FRICKEN publicist. ( who is a true artist in their own right, perhaps the best publicist of their generation, eh?)

    here is a LIST of a few equal or greater artists ( of the time based media vein) "of his generation" ... like being of the same general age makes a frickin dif. well i suppose it does to a publicist.

    Laurie Anderson
    Bill Viola
    Paul Pfeiffer
    Janett Caradiff

    And what the media considers film makers:
    Peter Greenaway

    Now do you mean greater as in has greater exposure, greater publicity, no then you are correct, he is "THE GREATEST"

    say cheese!
    AE03
    Atomic Elroy
    CHAOS Studios
    http://www.atomicelroy.com
  • Jim Andrews | Wed Oct 22nd 2003 3:26 a.m.
    > Hi Jim,
    >
    > it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
    > reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
    > criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
    > magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.

    Hi t.whid,

    It would be great if the web site were the real thing. I tend to like those
    sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to expect the real thing from the greatest
    artist of his generation? All the time and everywhere? Yet I am not
    outraged.

    > it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

    I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art spam? isn't
    the implication that it's known across the land?

    ja
  • MTAA | Wed Oct 22nd 2003 10:43 a.m.
    At 11:26 PM -0700 10/21/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >> Hi Jim,
    >>
    >> it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
    >> reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
    >> criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
    >> magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.
    >
    >Hi t.whid,
    >
    >It would be great if the web site were the real thing. I tend to like those
    >sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to expect the real thing from the greatest
    >artist of his generation? All the time and everywhere? Yet I am not
    >outraged.

    Yes. It is an unreasonable expectation. It is unreasonable to judge a
    thing which is meant to be a brochure for the art (more or less) as
    the art. And it's not just unreasonable, it's also just plain silly.

    If you can't discern the difference I can't help you.

    It's also unreasonable to criticize an artist for work you think they
    should make.

    >
    >> it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.
    >
    >I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art spam? isn't
    >the implication that it's known across the land?
    >
    >ja

    I don't understand what you mean by the above. I was simply giving a
    smart-ass reply to your (fairly obnoxious) post. The post was
    insulting. I'm not employed by anyone to publicize their work and
    it's an insulting insinuation. (I suppose because I called the
    financial pot-shots 'pathetic' you felt you were within your rights.)

    I will amend my earlier comment; I should have said that Barney is
    the greatest american artist of his generation.

    disclaimer: this is only my opinion and I have no power either
    through post of rhetorical talent to force this opinion on anyone who
    may feel otherwise. happy?
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Jim Andrews | Wed Oct 22nd 2003 11:44 p.m.
    > >It would be great if the web site were
    > the real thing. I tend to like those
    > >sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to
    > >expect the real thing from the greatest
    > >artist of his generation? All the time
    > >and everywhere? Yet I am not outraged.
    >
    > Yes. It is an unreasonable expectation. It is unreasonable to judge a
    > thing which is meant to be a brochure for the art (more or less) as
    > the art. And it's not just unreasonable, it's also just plain silly.
    >
    > If you can't discern the difference I can't help you.
    >
    > It's also unreasonable to criticize an artist for work you think they
    > should make.

    Ah, well, not having experienced the work of the greatest artist of his
    generation in the media it was truly created for, I am sentenced to
    experience only the brochure version. And should remain silent.

    > >> it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

    Cool, as long as it's your opinion, t.whid, as an independent intellectual.

    > >I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art
    > >spam? isn't the implication that it's known across the land?

    > I don't understand what you mean by the above.

    You said "more like american art spam."

    > I was simply giving a
    > smart-ass reply to your (fairly obnoxious) post.

    I'd say it was tit for tat then t.whid.

    > The post was
    > insulting. I'm not employed by anyone to publicize their work and
    > it's an insulting insinuation.

    To call something art spam is not necessarily to say it's being paid for.

    >(I suppose because I called the
    > financial pot-shots 'pathetic' you felt you were within your rights.)

    Look, you like his work and that's great, you enjoy it, and you think he's
    doing important work. but as a critical statement, to say someone is the
    greatest artist of their generation just reads to me like ad-minded drivel,
    t.whid, salesman talk. I expect more from you and i expect more from great
    artists than a brochure site.

    > I will amend my earlier comment; I should have said that Barney is
    > the greatest american artist of his generation.
    >
    > disclaimer: this is only my opinion and I have no power either
    > through post of rhetorical talent to force this opinion on anyone who
    > may feel otherwise. happy?

    Last i heard you are still free in your country to speak your mind.

    ja
  • Christopher Fahey | Thu Oct 23rd 2003 1:54 a.m.
    What's so great about the Cremaster web site? Looks like it has a lot of
    nice movie stills and some videos from the films, and it's certainly
    well designed, but it's only documentation of the films. It's not a
    unique work like the "Artificial Intelligence" and "Requiem for a Dream"
    movie web sites. Nor, honestly, does it look like it cost very much to
    make.

    http://www.requiemforadream.com/
    http://dontcloseyoureyes.warnerbros.com/
    http://www.donniedarko.com/
    http://cloudmakers.org

    I like film web sites that are *better* than the films they are intended
    to promote.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • curt cloninger | Thu Oct 23rd 2003 2:49 p.m.
    I agree. When I finally got around to seeing the Aronofsky film, it paled in comparison to the web site.

    more:
    http://www.otnemem.com

    http://www.spunthemovie.com/spun/valley/spun.html

    http://www.trailerparkboys.com/shit/instruct.html

    and
    http://www.titler.com
    ironically culls much source material from this documentary:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586640054/

    instead of web sites promoting movies and movies based on comic books & video games, what about a movie based on a web site? Miramax Films and Amblin Entertainment present "Superbad, The Movie," directed by Spike Jonze and starring Billy Bob Thornton as Uncle Jay.
    http://superbad.com/1/turkey/turkey.html

    curt
    _

    Christopher Fahey wrote:

    > What's so great about the Cremaster web site? Looks like it has a lot
    > of
    > nice movie stills and some videos from the films, and it's certainly
    > well designed, but it's only documentation of the films. It's not a
    > unique work like the "Artificial Intelligence" and "Requiem for a
    > Dream"
    > movie web sites. Nor, honestly, does it look like it cost very much to
    > make.
    >
    > http://www.requiemforadream.com/
    > http://dontcloseyoureyes.warnerbros.com/
    > http://www.donniedarko.com/
    > http://cloudmakers.org
    >
    > I like film web sites that are *better* than the films they are
    > intended
    > to promote.
    >
    > -Cf
    >
    > [christopher eli fahey]
    > art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    > sci: http://www.askrom.com
    > biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
    >
    >
    >
  • M. River | Thu Oct 23rd 2003 5:42 p.m.
    I've been hesitant to respond to this thread, but I'd
    like to add a few thoughts.

    I worked on the C3 set at the Guggenheim as well as
    installed Barny's show at the Guggenheim. As a person,
    I found him to be smart, polite, and funny. He's a bit
    punk in a positive sense. In production, he and his
    crew work hard...harder than most I've seen. They
    sweat the details. The studio, as his lead fabricator
    Ryle points out, often disappoints visitors for being
    a workshop not the fashion studio they expect.

    I say this to point out that what one perceives an
    artist to be is often distorted. He is successful, I
    believe, because he makes interesting work. He is
    successful because he works his ass off (so to speak).

    As for the work, regardless of how one likes to rate
    him as an artist, the Cremaster Cycle is an undeniably
    massive work full of innovation and depth. It may well
    stand as a major artwork in our time. Intentional
    hubris.

    The website, on the other hand, is a document. It only
    points to the artwork. To look at it in relation to
    net art/ net design shorts both. Apples and oranges.

    Why it was placed in the NAN I'm not sure. I do think
    is that it is useful to look at a range of artworks
    and approaches to content on the net. It may help
    clarify what we make.

    =====
    http://mteww.com
    http://tinjail.com

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    http://shopping.yahoo.com
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Oct 23rd 2003 6:51 p.m.
    Measuring of artistic values, such as "the greatest artist of ...", is a
    paradoxical proposition. We all know that it is not measured by how many
    people appreciate a particular work of art. If we went only by the number of
    votes, someone like Madonna would be the greatest artist (or musician) in
    the world. We all know that, in the end, art is subjective. But then is it
    really?

    Some artists claim that they do not care what other people think of their
    work, that they are only concerned with what they believe to be good. But
    this too is impossible, and is logically nonsensical. I cannot, for
    instance, define who I am without defining who everyone else is. Who I am is
    defined by what the others are not. So, if I say, *I* don't care what other
    people think of my work, and that *I* only care about what *I* believe to be
    good, how do I define this "I" without contrasting it with the values of the
    others?

    Whether you go by popularity or your own personal beliefs, the problem of
    artistic value does not get solved. In fact, it can never be. Whenever I
    come across issues like this where it is logically impossible to have an
    answer, I question the question itself. More specifically I question the
    motive, what drives me to ask this question.

    I am not against measuring, comparing, or competing. I believe they are
    important aspects of productive life. If I play chess, I play to win,
    because that is what makes the game fun. Problems arise when you reverse
    this process. That is, if you start to believe that it is fun because you
    win. The game should be fun whether you win or lose. Having fun or feeling
    joy from striving to achieve higher regardless of the outcome is what makes
    life worth living.

    The same goes for artistic values. Works of art can be compared and
    measured. In many ways, comparison is what makes the whole practice of art
    more fun and beneficial. But when you reverse this process, and believe that
    it is being better than others that makes practicing of art fun and
    worthwhile, that's when the trouble starts.

    Dyske
  • sean | Thu Oct 23rd 2003 7:42 p.m.
    I agree that whining about Matthew Barney getting money is really pathetic and childish. Do you really this he is taking money from other artists? Maybe if you had something compelling and were able to present it properly you could find a benefactor of some sort?
    Or should we just give you money because you want it really bad?

    I wish artists weren't so jaded and poisoned by thier Marxists teachers in college.
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Oct 24th 2003 2:55 a.m.
    Well said. I hope I am able to see it one of these days, and visit New York.
    It's evident from the support it gets on the list that the experience is
    crucial. As one would expect. Information is not experience.

    As for money and art, they are somewhat independent of one another, aren't
    they. Pound said 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But then there's no
    poetry in money, either." Hard to buy love and hard to create art by dint of
    money. Yet it is hard without it, also. It's just plain hard, however you
    look at it.

    What makes art possible in a particular place is usually in strong relation
    to what makes it so improbable there, also.

    ja

    > I've been hesitant to respond to this thread, but I'd
    > like to add a few thoughts.
    >
    > I worked on the C3 set at the Guggenheim as well as
    > installed Barny's show at the Guggenheim. As a person,
    > I found him to be smart, polite, and funny. He's a bit
    > punk in a positive sense. In production, he and his
    > crew work hard...harder than most I've seen. They
    > sweat the details. The studio, as his lead fabricator
    > Ryle points out, often disappoints visitors for being
    > a workshop not the fashion studio they expect.
    >
    > I say this to point out that what one perceives an
    > artist to be is often distorted. He is successful, I
    > believe, because he makes interesting work. He is
    > successful because he works his ass off (so to speak).
    >
    > As for the work, regardless of how one likes to rate
    > him as an artist, the Cremaster Cycle is an undeniably
    > massive work full of innovation and depth. It may well
    > stand as a major artwork in our time. Intentional
    > hubris.
    >
    > The website, on the other hand, is a document. It only
    > points to the artwork. To look at it in relation to
    > net art/ net design shorts both. Apples and oranges.
    >
    > Why it was placed in the NAN I'm not sure. I do think
    > is that it is useful to look at a range of artworks
    > and approaches to content on the net. It may help
    > clarify what we make.
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Oct 24th 2003 4:30 a.m.
    o yes let's do come to the rescue of capitalism and the american way, by all
    means, including art.

    ja

    > I agree that whining about Matthew Barney getting money is really
    > pathetic and childish. Do you really this he is taking money from
    > other artists? Maybe if you had something compelling and were
    > able to present it properly you could find a benefactor of some sort?
    > Or should we just give you money because you want it really bad?
    >
    > I wish artists weren't so jaded and poisoned by thier Marxists
    > teachers in college.
  • void void | Fri Oct 24th 2003 2:52 p.m.
    hey what about us artistes that didn't go to kollege?
    Can't we grow up to be Mathew Barney?

    this thread is totaly looney now.
    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

    Deranged in Denver wants to know:

    How can I ballance my Marxist views and still retain my love/hate relatiionship with Mathew barney, even if he isn't the "GREATEST" living artist of his generation?

    Nihilists in New York said:
    blabla art is the new dada art!
    didn't you know.... everyone in NY says so!

    have a laugh... at art's expense...

    this is a funny link
    http://www.despair.com

    SAY CHEESE!
    AE03
    http://www.atomcielroy.com
Your Reply