Net Art Market

Posted by Jason Van Anden | Thu Apr 21st 2005 6:59 a.m.

I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back - privately.

I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:

Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in as to why you feel that way?

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
  • patrick lichty | Thu Apr 21st 2005 10:36 a.m.
    I may or may not have replied, not because I consider it poison (which I
    don't), but mainly in that I don't feel it asks any questions that
    aren't out there from conceptualism.

    Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

    Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
    Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.

    Patrick Lichty
    Editor-In-Chief
    Intelligent Agent Magazine
    http://www.intelligentagent.com
    1556 Clough Street, #28
    Bowling Green, OH 43402
    225 288 5813
    voyd@voyd.com

    "It is better to die on your feet
    than to live on your knees."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of Jason Van Anden
    Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market

    I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    privately.

    I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but
    then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate,
    I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:

    Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in
    as to why you feel that way?

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.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
  • ryan griffis | Thu Apr 21st 2005 11:39 a.m.
    i'm kinda with Patrick - the commodity question has tagged along with
    most "experimental" art forms, but i just don't find it that
    interesting of a problem. think of people working in "old new media"
    like diana thater who sells limited edition videos, films - and mostly
    drawings of plans (not unlike christo). people buy and sell art.
    in terms of payment schemes, didn't rhizome implement one way of doing
    this - a membership program? it seems somewhat successful, depending on
    who you ask and how you define success. non-profit arts spaces have
    used this tactic for a long time. the barnsdall art space in LA (a
    non-profit space on the site of a FL Wright house) charges $5 just to
    see the shows, except for their selected free days. not unlike
    rhizome's free fridays. of course, these fees are to support
    institutions, who then exhibit (make visible) the work of artists (it
    doesn't financially support producers in the same way a private gallery
    system does - but then non-profit directors don't usually make buko
    bucks either).
    if you're looking for more entrepreneurial discussions of object
    selling, maybe contact the folks that started this site that t.whid
    sent in recently.
    http://www.softwareartspace.com/
  • curt cloninger | Thu Apr 21st 2005 11:43 a.m.
    Hi Jason,

    Here are some money-making models:

    1.
    T. just posted this:
    http://www.softwareartspace.com
    [sell software for looping projection purposes]

    2.
    Same artist loops as above, hard-wired into LCD screens, framed, signed, and sold as animated paintings:
    http://www.bitforms.com/artist_levin.html
    [if it's in a frame and signed, it must be "real" art]

    3.
    Here is some net art for sale on a ROM:
    http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0034
    [take your old experimental sites offline, put them on a ROM, and sell the ROM. The catch -- you have to have had some actual visitors to your site who liked it.]

    4.
    Here is an entire artists' hard drive for sale on a ROM:
    http://www.eastgate.com/catalog/Praystation.html
    [make your .fla files public, and if your action scripting is interesting enough, people will buy it just to view and re-purpose your source code.]

    5.
    a gallery show involving physical ephemera related to ethereal digital art projects:
    http://nothing.org/net_ephemera/
    [with art in the age of mechanical reproduction, don't sell the infinitely reproducible art itself, sell the finite incidental crap associated with the art. scarce crap is more salable than abundant quality.]

    6.
    thing.net has a regular online art auction. some of the pieces are digital.
    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://auction.thing.net/
    [trick somebody into believing that a signed website on a ROM (as opposed to the exact same website, unsigned, online) might someday be worth money in the art market.]

    7.
    charge a subscription fee (by day, month, or year) to view the art website. The site is password protected, it gives a few samples away for free, and then you have to subscribe to see the rest of it.
    http://www.scottmccloud.com
    http://www.demian5.com
    [the porn site model. the salon.com model. of course, you have to have art that somebody might want to view repeatedly after they've seen it once, and you have to have art that somebody might want to pay money to view at all in the first place.]

    8.
    use net art as a prototype/portfolio/proving ground, and then get hired to do paying work that's related.
    http://projects.c505.com/projects/ascii_rock/index.html [the original give-away]
    http://www.machineproject.com/ASCII_BUSH/ [the turbulence grant]
    http://www.partizan.us/musicvideos/ais/beck.html [the commercial gig]
    [this is the artist as performer model. you get paid for gigs (installations, performaces, VJ generative projections of band tours).]

    9.
    Get grants and commissions.

    10.
    Win contests.

    +++++++++++++++++

    "Digital" art to me doesn't seem so hard to sell. Like the McCoys have those database pop film libraries on various themes. They are digital and use software, but they are also physical installation objects and you can sell them like you'd sell a painting or a sculpture. The challenge is selling "net art" which is dependent on the network, art that is infinitely reproducible and already available to be experienced by anyone anywhere anytime. That's a whole different can of worms.

    Maybe nobody responded because the "how to make online art salable" topic has been discussed since 1996 with no real "solution."

    Novelists are forever lamenting the fact that nobody reads anymore, but what they are really lamenting is the fact that nobody reads them. Similarly, net artists who ask "how can we make money off of net art" are often asking, "how can I make money off of my net art?"

    On the commercial net before the bubble burst, the burning question was, "how can I make money off the net?" After the bubble burst, the facile conclusion was, "I can't make money off the net." The better question would have been, "what is the net good for, and how might I use its strengths to forward my business." Similarly, the better question for the net artist might be, "what is the net good for, and how might I use its strengths to forward my artistic practice?" It probably invovles keeping your day job.

    Steve Dietz quotes Eddo Stern who proposes that the net itself is more interesting than any single piece of net art.

    Dietz goes on to say, "Contemporary installation art is not necessarily the right context in which to understand net art. It is the net itself. The system. In this Twilight Zone of contemporary practice, we may, in fact, need to get up from our couches and adjust the TV set to understand what constitutes 'greatness,' whether as producers of or participants in net art."

    (full article at: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html )

    I'm not dissing you, Jason. I think yours is a fair question to ask, and I don't pretend to know your motives in asking it (maybe you could share your motives). I just think there are more interesting questions to ask now in regards to net art.

    peace,
    curt

    Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    > digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    > privately.
    >
    > I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
    > but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
    > rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
    > another try:
    >
    > Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    > appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
    > in as to why you feel that way?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
  • Jason Van Anden | Thu Apr 21st 2005 11:47 a.m.
    Hi Patrick,

    I can think of two ways that money has been found to fuel Conceptualism:

    1.) public support
    (ie: DIA, NEA, etc...)

    2.) retro-fit into "old art" gallery model
    (ie: documentation for sale as limited edition prints)

    Clearly there are plenty of examples of net art that has adopted this approach. It seems to me that where these forms differ is in the distribution.

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • carlo zanni | Thu Apr 21st 2005 11:58 a.m.
    altarboy, the server-sculpture

    http://www.zanni.org/altarboy.htm

    and

    http://www.zanni.org/altarboy-interview.htm

    best,

    z

    patrick lichty wrote:

    > I may or may not have replied, not because I consider it poison (which
    > I
    > don't), but mainly in that I don't feel it asks any questions that
    > aren't out there from conceptualism.
    >
    > Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.
    >
    > Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
    > Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.
    >
    > Patrick Lichty
    > Editor-In-Chief
    > Intelligent Agent Magazine
    > http://www.intelligentagent.com
    > 1556 Clough Street, #28
    > Bowling Green, OH 43402
    > 225 288 5813
    > voyd@voyd.com
    >
    > "It is better to die on your feet
    > than to live on your knees."
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    > Of Jason Van Anden
    > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
    > To: list@rhizome.org
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market
    >
    > I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    > digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    > privately.
    >
    > I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
    > but
    > then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
    > rate,
    > I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another
    > try:
    >
    > Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    > appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
    > in
    > as to why you feel that way?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.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
    >
  • Plasma Studii | Thu Apr 21st 2005 12:03 p.m.
    >Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

    funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
    xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
    not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
    they do know, which seldom makes any sense.

    every piece of art is subject to wear and tear. possibly, for now,
    you can pretty much guarantee it works by selling the machine and
    software as a package. and then, like collectors store paintings in
    temp controlled warehouses, a buyer has the option to just shelve it.
    if machines malfunction, restoration's a hazard we've always dealt
    with, (but usually well made ones don't even do that). like Degas'
    pastels are made with materials prone to degradation. ideally, we
    can include better built hardware/os.

    old (mac) laptops are cheap and have all the useful features, or 10
    year old interactive pieces work fine on this new machine (even the
    web). but certainly in a few years, file formats will be even more
    standardized. probably, we're just in the pony express era, seeing
    the need for zip codes.

    there are a few examples like hyper card works that will get lost to
    most of us in the settling down process, but so did those wax tube
    recordings for the old victrolas. worrying about processor speed
    would be like expecting silent movies not to run a little fast.
    spilled milk. while "new media" to grows past infancy, these things
    get ironed out, and not always without some disappointments. but
    we're already in pretty good shape.

    so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
    sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.

    >
    >Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
    >Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.
    >
    >Patrick Lichty
    >Editor-In-Chief
    >Intelligent Agent Magazine
    >http://www.intelligentagent.com
    >1556 Clough Street, #28
    >Bowling Green, OH 43402
    >225 288 5813
    >voyd@voyd.com
    >
    >"It is better to die on your feet
    >than to live on your knees."
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    >Of Jason Van Anden
    >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
    >To: list@rhizome.org
    >Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market
    >
    >I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    >digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    >privately.
    >
    >I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but
    >then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate,
    >I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:
    >
    >Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    >appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in
    >as to why you feel that way?
    >
    >Jason Van Anden
    >www.smileproject.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
    >
    >+
    >-> 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

    --

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PLASMA STUDII
    art non-profit
    stages * galleries * the web
    PO Box 1086
    Cathedral Station
    New York, USA

    (on-line press kit)
    http://plasmastudii.org

    --

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PLASMA STUDII
    art non-profit
    stages * galleries * the web
    PO Box 1086
    Cathedral Station
    New York, USA

    (on-line press kit)
    http://plasmastudii.org
  • patrick lichty | Thu Apr 21st 2005 12:24 p.m.
    >Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

    funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
    xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
    not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
    they do know, which seldom makes any sense.

    I don't see there being a problem to it; I just don't see many people
    making a marketing model work. These are two very different. We all
    market, one way or another at one time or another.

    so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
    sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.

    Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
    can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)
  • Regina Pinto | Thu Apr 21st 2005 12:44 p.m.
    Well, browser at:

    http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm

    Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's interesting article on this subject.

    Best wishes,

    Regina Celia Pinto

    Museum of the Essential and Beyond That

    http://arteonline.arq.br
    http;//arteonline.arq.br/library.htm

    patrick lichty wrote:

    >
    > >Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.
    >
    > funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
    > xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
    > not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
    > they do know, which seldom makes any sense.
    >
    > I don't see there being a problem to it; I just don't see many people
    > making a marketing model work. These are two very different. We all
    > market, one way or another at one time or another.
    >
    >
    >
    > so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
    > sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.
    >
    >
    > Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
    > can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)
    >
  • Jason Van Anden | Thu Apr 21st 2005 12:58 p.m.
    Hi Curt,

    Thanks for the feedback.

    My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me to devote myself to making art full time.

    I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will see how easily that system breaks down.

    Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a market in their own element.

    I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke, who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.

    Jason Van Anden

    curt cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Jason,
    > Here are some money-making models...
  • Rob Myers | Thu Apr 21st 2005 1:36 p.m.
    On 21 Apr 2005, at 19:24, patrick lichty wrote:

    > Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
    > can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)

    This is a key point.

    But selling people a signed (or signed and numbered) DVD case with the
    software and a contract in seems to have worked.

    Sol Lewitt gets away with similar.

    And there's the Free Software revenue model: customisation and
    services. Or commissions and installation as it used to be known.

    On the subject of the ephemerality of particular platforms:

    I use Lisp for my software art because it's bitfast.
    1. It's been around for fifty years and is still the most advanced
    programming language there is. Its popularity is on the rise again and
    it's likely to be around for some time yet.
    2. It's very easy to implement, and so would be very easy to
    re-implement if it should ever fall out of favour.
    So as long as my code can be copied, and the CLOS and PostScript specs
    exists, my art can be run.

    - Rob.
  • Plasma Studii | Thu Apr 21st 2005 2:18 p.m.
    >Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
    >can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)

    i agree that social contract is hardly a universal given. but shame
    on these buyers/curators/collectors/etc. for being so nostalgic, not
    in touch with modern peoples' real lives. think jason was asking
    about his options as a web artist. you (patrick) would surely know,
    wood paneling aside, mostly the obstacle isn't the artists missing
    out on the paradigm shift, but the astonishing majority of
    buyers/curators/collectors in positions to be the
    authority/leaders/teachers. there's only so much we can do to ease
    them along.

    we can either A. make new work for new audiences where sales on the
    web is integral to development. or B. re-present work in a format
    the audience we are used to, those buyers/curators/sellers who are
    only used to traditional mediums, are comfortable with. they get
    "installation", so just don't let em hear the start up chime.

    hopefully, this issue will be a moot point, the object fetish
    eventually dies (like support for copyright, resistance to things
    like napster), value becomes null, can't remain practical or viable.
    meanwhile, value shifts to the creators of wanted services or
    objects, (which would also dissolve the upper-class bias in the art
    world). then web art value wouldn't be a question. but that would
    really put a flip on the collector (or record company). it ain't
    happening tomorrow. these may just be the dark ages.
    --

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PLASMA STUDII
    art non-profit
    stages * galleries * the web
    PO Box 1086
    Cathedral Station
    New York, USA

    (on-line press kit)
    http://plasmastudii.org
  • curt cloninger | Thu Apr 21st 2005 2:40 p.m.
    Hi Jason,

    Another idea that transcends the paneling is to make art for free and give it away. There are 8 extra hours to make art between 5pm and 3am. That still gives you 5 hours of sleep per night. Then there are 2 full days on Saturday and Sunday. And if you can get a non-9-5 job like teaching in college, that's often 2 extra days per week and 3 entire months per year.

    So that's 3 entire months per year to make art all the time. Then 9 months per year making art 4 days per week all the time, and the other 3 days per week you still get to make art 8 hours per day.

    [Individual mileage may vary. Check local listings for details.]

    Do you want to spend more time making art (possible in virtually any situation, particularly with net art where your material costs are minimal), or do you want to spend less time working at your day job (a much more challenging prospect)? People regularly confuse these two desires, but they're not necessarily related.

    On a more personal tack, if you suddenly got a day job that you loved, would that solve the problem? Does your art need to make money in order for you to feel that it/you are good/legitimate?

    Don't feel obliged to answer these questions publicly. I just think they're useful.

    peace,
    curt

    Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > Hi Curt,
    >
    > Thanks for the feedback.
    >
    > My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me
    > to devote myself to making art full time.
    >
    > I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and
    > this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a
    > collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this
    > information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms
    > would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will
    > see how easily that system breaks down.
    >
    > Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be
    > solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online
    > (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a
    > market in their own element.
    >
    > I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke,
    > who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old
    > media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides
    > of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I
    > think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
  • Jason Van Anden | Thu Apr 21st 2005 3:48 p.m.
    Hi Curt,

    Just got home from said day job - decided to reply instead of create art for the moment - you be the judge. I am not sure I understand the make art for free as an alternative to "paneling" comment, but I totally get the rest of what you are saying.

    Perhaps I am an idealist or naive, but I believe there is a market out there the galleries (and apparently we) do not yet understand - by way of bringing this up I am trying to find clues as to what this might be.

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Jason Nelson | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 12:24 a.m.
    Jason and all,

    I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
    It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
    artists or curators to convince others (companies,
    wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
    their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
    the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.

    Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
    doorway for their customers. So having some net art
    work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
    scope of an art investor's collection.

    But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
    site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
    screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
    page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?

    I honestly feel that this will come to pass
    eventually. It will just take a few collectors
    spending some cash and promoting the idea.

    does this sound feasible?

    Jason Nelson

    --- Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    > I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment
    > schemes for digital/online art, sucessful or not".
    > I got one email back - privately.
    >
    > I have a few theories as to why this topic may be
    > considered poison, but then again maybe it was bad
    > timing or my choice of title. At any rate, I feel
    > this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
    > another try:
    >
    > Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art?
    > Examples would be appreciated. If you consider this
    > a toxic topic - could you clue me in as to why you
    > feel that way?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.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
    >

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com
  • Jason Van Anden | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 5:47 a.m.
    I found the softwareartspace website (#1 in Curt's list) intellectually interesting given this discussion, particularly in regards to "paneling". Here we have an actual artwork in the frame of my monitor in the frame of the browser in the frame of a bitmap in the frame of a picture of a monitor in the frame of reference of a frozen someone else interacting with it. Talk about hardcore conceptual digital art!

    Quick replies...

    Jason Nelson wrote:

    > It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
    artists or curators to convince others (companies,
    wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
    their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
    the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.

    Patrick Lichty wrote:

    > Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract
    that buyers can make sense of at the moment (or many
    instances of them)

    Both excellent points. Do you think that it is possible to define this contract from the bottom up?

    Regina Celia Pinto wrote:

    > Well, browser at:
    http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
    Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since
    last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's
    interesting >article on this subject.

    I read the Picot article but did not realize there was a discussion that followed (http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm). I plan to read it.

    Thanks All,
    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Geert Dekkers | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 11:22 a.m.
    Actually -- I'd love to know how to sell art -- period. And by that I mean -- how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of years on the game, I'm still stumped.

    Cheers
    Geert
    (http://nznl.com)

    Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    > digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    > privately.
    >
    > I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
    > but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
    > rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
    > another try:
    >
    > Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    > appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
    > in as to why you feel that way?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 11:55 a.m.
    simple, make stuff like this:
    http://www.artincanada.com/danieltaylor/gallery1.html

    Geert Dekkers wrote:
    > Actually -- I'd love to know how to sell art -- period. And by that I mean -- how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of years on the game, I'm still stumped.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Geert
    > (http://nznl.com)
    >
    > Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    >>digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    >>privately.
    >>
    >>I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
    >>but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
    >>rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
    >>another try:
    >>
    >>Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
    >>appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
    >>in as to why you feel that way?
    >>
    >>Jason Van Anden
    >>www.smileproject.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
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

    Lorna
    http://www.this.is/lorna
    _______________________________
  • Rob Myers | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 12:31 p.m.
    Jeff Koons eat your heart out.

    Presumably as part of some satanic ritual.

    - Rob.

    On 22 Apr 2005, at 18:55, Pall Thayer wrote:

    > simple, make stuff like this:
    > http://www.artincanada.com/danieltaylor/gallery1.html
    >
    > Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >> Actually -- I'd love to know how to sell art -- period. And by that I
    >> mean -- how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of
    >> years on the game, I'm still stumped.
    >> Cheers
    >> Geert
    >> (http://nznl.com)
    >> Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >>> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
    >>> digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
    >>> privately.
    >>> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
    >>> but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
    >>> rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
    >>> another try:
    >>>
    >>> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would
    >>> be
    >>> appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
    >>> in as to why you feel that way?
    >>>
    >>> Jason Van Anden
    >>> www.smileproject.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
    >
    > --
    > _______________________________
    > Pall Thayer
    > artist/teacher
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    >
    > Lorna
    > http://www.this.is/lorna
    > _______________________________
    > +
    > -> 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
  • curt cloninger | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 1:21 p.m.
    Hi Jason,

    Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/

    _

    Jason Nelson wrote:

    > Jason and all,
    >
    > I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
    > It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
    > artists or curators to convince others (companies,
    > wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
    > their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
    > the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
    >
    > Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
    > doorway for their customers. So having some net art
    > work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
    > scope of an art investor's collection.
    >
    > But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
    > site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
    > screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
    > page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?
    >
    > I honestly feel that this will come to pass
    > eventually. It will just take a few collectors
    > spending some cash and promoting the idea.
    >
    > does this sound feasible?
    >
    > Jason Nelson
  • ryan griffis | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 3:52 p.m.
    hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based projects?
    i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion of
    their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    art-based project...
    ryan

    On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Jason,
    >
    > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
    > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    > experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
  • curt cloninger | Fri Apr 22nd 2005 7:50 p.m.
    It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more filmic/motion design.

    ryan griffis wrote:

    > hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    > projects?
    > i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    > of
    > their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    > art-based project...
    > ryan
    >
    > On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Jason,
    > >
    > > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
    > > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    > > experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    > > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
    >
  • Jason Nelson | Sat Apr 23rd 2005 9:17 a.m.
    I imagine what needs to happen is for someone (one of
    us) to convince a paint/clay/print collector who has a
    website to buy a net art work. The price would
    probably be low, so the hundred hours it took to make
    would average out to about five dollars an hour. But
    then the hope is that the idea would spread, and as
    collectors love to apply their egos to their objects
    their fellow collectors would surely hear about it.

    Doron Golan (of computerfinearts.com) has an
    interesting model created for collecting net art. But
    the problem might be how do you know what an original
    is. But it seems the artist could easily add something
    to the work to clearly state who owns it (after it was
    bought), and other add ons to the net artwork could
    act as a more complex form of signing.

    So maybe we should put our research skills to use and
    find some collectors with a presence on the web.

    Jason Nelson

    --- curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
    > It seems like the first (and perhaps only)
    > altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I
    > can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar
    > stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
    > it's more filmic/motion design.
    >
    > ryan griffis wrote:
    >
    > > hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar
    > net-based
    > > projects?
    > > i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but
    > only found promotion
    > > of
    > > their investments in contemporary art. i know that
    > they had a net
    > > art-based project...
    > > ryan
    > >
    > > On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Jason,
    > > >
    > > > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online
    > gallery" a while back,
    > > > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting
    > work by various
    > > > experimental designers. The space is archived
    > here:
    > > > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com
  • Jeremy Zilar | Sun Apr 24th 2005 12:46 p.m.
    is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is large
    enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for people
    to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger than
    the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?

    -jeremy

    curt cloninger wrote:

    > It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more filmic/motion design.
    >
    > ryan griffis wrote:
    >
    >
    >>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>projects?
    >>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    >>of
    >>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    >>art-based project...
    >>ryan
    >>
    >>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hi Jason,
    >>>
    >>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
    >>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    >>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Sun Apr 24th 2005 1:35 p.m.
    Hi Jeremy,

    A well-known ongoing, grand scale net art piece:
    http://www.worldofawe.net

    It's kind of like saying, "maybe garage rock hasn't attracted the
    attention of top 40 radio yet because ..." When garage rock and top
    40 radio are largely incompatible. Maybe net art and
    contemporary/future art collectors are largely incompatible. I don't
    see it as a problem to be solved. Can an art movement be
    historically legitimate, culturally relevant, and
    intellectually/aesthetically rewarding without ever finding a market?
    Might it be all the more so without a market?

    peace,
    curt

    _

    At 2:46 PM -0400 4/24/05, jeremy wrote:
    >is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    >large enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    >I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    >people to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking
    >larger than the average site? or extending beyond the computer in
    >ways?
    >
    >-jeremy
    >
    >
    >curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    >>It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    >>artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel
    >>sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
    >>it's more filmic/motion design.
    >>
    >>ryan griffis wrote:
    >>
    >>>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>>projects? i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only
    >>>found promotion
    >>>of their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a
    >>>net art-based project...
    >>>ryan
    >>>
    >>>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Hi Jason,
    >>>>
    >>>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    >>>>back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by
    >>>>various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
  • Dirk Vekemans | Sun Apr 24th 2005 1:52 p.m.
    Jeremy & all,
    i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm , but that is not the issue).

    Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?

    it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start working the selling way...

    just a thought,
    dv

    Jeremy Zilar wrote:

    > is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    > large
    > enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    > I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    > people
    > to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
    > than
    > the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
    >
    > -jeremy
    >
    >
    > curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    > > It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    > artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
    > similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
    > filmic/motion design.
    > >
    > > ryan griffis wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    > >>projects?
    > >>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    > >>of
    > >>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    > >>art-based project...
    > >>ryan
    > >>
    > >>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Hi Jason,
    > >>>
    > >>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    > back,
    > >>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    > >>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    > >>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    > >
  • Plasma Studii | Sun Apr 24th 2005 5:01 p.m.
    Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
    artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
    making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?

    it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
    amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
    doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
    working the selling way...

    if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
    that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
    so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
    "artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
    the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
    other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
    would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
    expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
    to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
    a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
    a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
    for agreeing on colors.

    this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
    how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?

    we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
    motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
    rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
    art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
    good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
    programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
    desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
    the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
    actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
    (though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).

    but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
    the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, ...
    who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
    that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

    if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
    for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
    like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
    besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
    popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
    SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
    we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
    so, what's your goal?

    --

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PLASMA STUDII
    art non-profit
    stages * galleries * the web
    PO Box 1086
    Cathedral Station
    New York, USA

    (on-line press kit)
    http://plasmastudii.org
  • Geert Dekkers | Sun Apr 24th 2005 5:31 p.m.
    Another thought. Art gallery visitors go from museum to private
    gallery, browsing, and may perhaps buy something now and then. Gallery
    owners know their collectors because this is after all a select and
    small community. Most gallery owners I know sell very little, can
    barely make ends meet. Most artists I know do worse. Which is
    unsurprising seeing as the product is this uncopyable unique work of
    art (well perhaps a series of (wow) 10! prints). This is "Art in the
    Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Of course this is all obvious, but I
    thought I might just plaster it all over.

    It took a whole while for video art to be accepted. Now you can buy it
    readily -- I picked up a copy of the excellent "Lauf der Dinge" by
    Fishl and Weiss for 30 euros. How much of these have been sold, do you
    think? And how much did they get out of it? (There are other examples
    to the contrary, where the work is partly hardware, as in Bill Viola or
    of course Nam June Paik -- these are to be seen as classical art works
    [just need electricity] -- and then again, this Cory Archangel work
    comes to mind, using the 80's tv and such, which is actually just video
    art done up as net.art [I did look for the name of the piece, can't
    find it fast enough])

    What I'm trying to say is that a work is either hardware, and unique,
    in which case the artist and the whole chain of command that goes with
    the selling can only earn from the one sale, or the work is software,
    thence copyable, and in that case everything goes for software-type art
    (music, for example, freed from the carrier -- well, you know the
    rest). So if you know how to make a living off shareware you might find
    out (and please tell me!!!) how to make a living doing net.art.

    Just my tuppence worth

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

    On 24-apr-05, at 21:52, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

    >
    > Jeremy & all,
    > i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all
    > but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with
    > a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or
    > that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how
    > to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I
    > think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina
    > Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
    > , but that is not the issue).
    >
    > Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
    > artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
    > making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
    >
    > it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
    > amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
    > doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
    > working the selling way...
    >
    > just a thought,
    > dv
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Jeremy Zilar wrote:
    >
    >> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    >> large
    >> enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    >> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    >> people
    >> to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
    >> than
    >> the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
    >>
    >> -jeremy
    >>
    >>
    >> curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    >> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
    >> similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
    >> filmic/motion design.
    >>>
    >>> ryan griffis wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>>> projects?
    >>>> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    >>>> of
    >>>> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    >>>> art-based project...
    >>>> ryan
    >>>>
    >>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi Jason,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    >> back,
    >>>>> curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    >>>>> experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >>>
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • Geert Dekkers | Mon Apr 25th 2005 12:10 a.m.
    Another thought. Art gallery visitors go from museum to private
    gallery, browsing, and may perhaps buy something now and then. Gallery
    owners know their collectors because this is after all a select and
    small community. Most gallery owners I know sell very little, can
    barely make ends meet. Most artists I know do worse. Which is
    unsurprising seeing as the product is this uncopyable unique work of
    art (well perhaps a series of (wow) 10! prints). This is "Art in the
    Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Of course this is all obvious, but I
    thought I might just plaster it all over.

    It took a whole while for video art to be accepted. Now you can buy it
    readily -- I picked up a copy of the excellent "Lauf der Dinge" by
    Fishl and Weiss for 30 euros. How much of these have been sold, do you
    think? And how much did they get out of it? (There are other examples
    to the contrary, where the work is partly hardware, as in Bill Viola or
    of course Nam June Paik -- these are to be seen as classical art works
    [just need electricity] -- and then again, this Cory Archangel work
    comes to mind, using the 80's tv and such, which is actually just video
    art done up as net.art [I did look for the name of the piece, can't
    find it fast enough])

    What I'm trying to say is that a work is either hardware, and unique,
    in which case the artist and the whole chain of command that goes with
    the selling can only earn from the one sale, or the work is software,
    thence copyable, and in that case everything goes for software-type art
    (music, for example, freed from the carrier -- well, you know the
    rest). So if you know how to make a living off shareware you might find
    out (and please tell me!!!) how to make a living doing net.art.

    Just my tuppence worth

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

    On 24-apr-05, at 21:52, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

    >
    > Jeremy & all,
    > i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all
    > but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with
    > a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or
    > that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how
    > to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I
    > think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina
    > Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
    > , but that is not the issue).
    >
    > Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
    > artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
    > making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
    >
    > it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
    > amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
    > doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
    > working the selling way...
    >
    > just a thought,
    > dv
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Jeremy Zilar wrote:
    >
    >> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    >> large
    >> enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    >> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    >> people
    >> to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
    >> than
    >> the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
    >>
    >> -jeremy
    >>
    >>
    >> curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    >> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
    >> similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
    >> filmic/motion design.
    >>>
    >>> ryan griffis wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>>> projects?
    >>>> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    >>>> of
    >>>> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    >>>> art-based project...
    >>>> ryan
    >>>>
    >>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi Jason,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    >> back,
    >>>>> curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    >>>>> experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >>>
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Mon Apr 25th 2005 8:52 a.m.
    judsoN wrote:

    > art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    > what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.

    This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic, cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Apr 25th 2005 10:10 a.m.
    >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
    >
    >This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
    >cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
    >economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
    >celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a
    >heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty
    >cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and
    >worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.

    ok, and that's cool. i would too at first. it definitely turned me
    off about psychology only until recently. but it's kind of like
    assuming computers can't make art because they are cold and
    heartless. (so are paint brushes. but both are just tools.) you
    may be assuming "what we want" and "celebration" are incompatible?

    but we can still be driven by a desire to be happy . you could also
    say we're driven by an addiction to the chemicals released in the
    brain. but that's a method not an end. that doesn't say happiness
    can't be spontaneous, that explains what differentiates happiness
    from non-happiness technically, just not poetically. And a poetic
    calibration isn't useful technically (though it's all over the US
    legal system).

    it's not that these free-will vs. reaction arguments are ever right
    or wrong. it's that often, they can be the same thing. for
    instance, how does a god end up making happiness in people and have
    them want to keep trying to attain it? do it with dopamine. it's
    just a tool!

    arguing against "self-serving" motivations is like saying
    masturbating is a sin. ok, some people love their hang ups. i can't
    expect you to agree, but may suspect we'd be saying the same thing if
    it weren't clouded by centuries of repressed and displaced taboo
    motivations.
  • ryan griffis | Mon Apr 25th 2005 10:19 a.m.
    >
    >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
    >
    > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
    > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
    > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
    > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart
    > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold
    > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship
    > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.

    curt,
    i understand your response to the above statement, which i object to as
    well... i agree with many of your contributions to the discussion on
    selling net art, etc.
    but to label that above statement as similar to a marxist position
    might as well be red baiting. marx was not anti-play. and the notion
    that someone would work as something other than an artist, then spend
    leisure time engaging in creative activity in order to create something
    aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more about something is
    entirely a marxist one.
    i would replace "marxist economist" in your response to "classical
    economist" or if you want to be more specific, possibly a "free market
    economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining shoes (unless you're
    making your own shoes) is the position of capital, not marxism.
    ryan
  • Michael Szpakowski | Mon Apr 25th 2005 12:50 p.m.
    Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    the roots of art.
    Marx wouldn't have either.
    Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    -although given the political evolution of many of
    those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    Labour, loud and clear.

    best
    michael

    --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    > getting
    > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    > of shoes.
    > >
    > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    > materialistic,
    > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    > something a marxist
    > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    > art is a
    > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    > worship out of a heart
    > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    > It's pretty cold
    > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    > celebration and worship
    > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    >
    > curt,
    > i understand your response to the above statement,
    > which i object to as
    > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    > the discussion on
    > selling net art, etc.
    > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    > marxist position
    > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    > anti-play. and the notion
    > that someone would work as something other than an
    > artist, then spend
    > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    > to create something
    > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    > about something is
    > entirely a marxist one.
    > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    > to "classical
    > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    > possibly a "free market
    > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    > shoes (unless you're
    > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    > not marxism.
    > ryan
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Mon Apr 25th 2005 1:10 p.m.
    Hi Judson,

    We disagree, and it's one of those things that probably won't get
    worked out on a mailing list. I just didn't want to let your
    assertion pass without objection. Regarding your response, I'm not
    letting you off the hook with the 'semantic differences/we're
    basically saying the same thing' argument. In your cosmology,
    perhaps. But it's the fundamental suppositions of your cosmology to
    which I object.

    The question is less whether your position is cynical/cold or
    enlightened/progressive. The question is whether it accurately
    accounts for actual human behavior.

    One of my critiques of your position is that it's so generalized and
    all-encompassing. You're saying that every single human action is in
    some way self-serving. There's no room for any exception whatsoever.
    That's a tough position to defend. I'm not proposing that every
    single person who claims an altruistic action is truly altruistic,
    but I am saying that a selfless love does indeed exist. I don't have
    to show that selfless love hapens all over the place, or even that
    it's the norm. I just have to show that it exists at all.
    Experientially, I've received and witnessed enough acts of selfless
    love to categorically disagree with you. Based on my experience, it
    takes much more faith for me to believe that every human act of good
    will is actually some behaviorally driven form of self service than
    it does for me to believe that a kind of selfless love actually
    exists.

    I propose that a kind of selfless love exists that by its very
    definition is not self-seeking (all semantics and endorphins and
    displaced taboo motivations aside). Its attributes are summarized
    here:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?searchorinthians13

    Such a love might cause someone to labor at great personal cost and
    totally off the radar to make art like this:
    http://www.inpreparation.com/nekchand/gallery.html
    http://www.simplephotographs.com/wickham/bigger.html
    http://www.narrowlarry.com/nlwatts.html

    You perhaps have a ready behavioral explanation. I propose that
    there are more mysterious, spiritual, wondrous forces at work in
    heaven and earth, Judson, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Selfless love is chief among them.

    Note that I'm not dissing people who want to make money off their
    art, nor am I saying that making art for an audience of one is better
    or more pure. I'm just objecting to the categorical assertion that
    "art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting what you
    really want."

    respectfully,
    curt

    At 12:10 PM -0400 4/25/05, Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:
    >>> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    >>> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
    >>
    >>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
    >>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
    >>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
    >>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a
    >>heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty
    >>cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and
    >>worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    >
    >ok, and that's cool. i would too at first. it definitely turned me
    >off about psychology only until recently. but it's kind of like
    >assuming computers can't make art because they are cold and
    >heartless. (so are paint brushes. but both are just tools.) you
    >may be assuming "what we want" and "celebration" are incompatible?
    >
    >
    >but we can still be driven by a desire to be happy . you could also
    >say we're driven by an addiction to the chemicals released in the
    >brain. but that's a method not an end. that doesn't say happiness
    >can't be spontaneous, that explains what differentiates happiness
    >from non-happiness technically, just not poetically. And a poetic
    >calibration isn't useful technically (though it's all over the US
    >legal system).
    >
    >it's not that these free-will vs. reaction arguments are ever right
    >or wrong. it's that often, they can be the same thing. for
    >instance, how does a god end up making happiness in people and have
    >them want to keep trying to attain it? do it with dopamine. it's
    >just a tool!
    >
    >
    >arguing against "self-serving" motivations is like saying
    >masturbating is a sin. ok, some people love their hang ups. i
    >can't expect you to agree, but may suspect we'd be saying the same
    >thing if it weren't clouded by centuries of repressed and displaced
    >taboo motivations.
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Apr 25th 2005 1:13 p.m.
    Judson & all,

    Sorry i've had to postpone continuing this discussion by some sleep and actually make some money with my daytime job, so here's my answers to Judson's reply.
    I do feel i have to be as exact as i can about this (oh dear), if only to do right to other artists, so the reply is gonna be lengthy, sorry.

    For clarity, if any there is, i'll cut up your reply some, Judson, and paste it before my answers if you don't mind

    > if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
    > that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
    > so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
    > "artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
    > the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
    > other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
    > would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
    > expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
    > to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
    > a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
    > a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
    > for agreeing on colors.

    my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and its consequences first:
    Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of being 'judgmental', to refuse to be labeled such: besides making my texts available for everyone, i present them in their purest form, unlabeled by any sociological process. Why? to maximise the marginal effect poetry has in our society. Add to that that i regularly read my poetry for free at small gatherings, i think you can hardly make the point that i'm in some way arrogantly refusing to communicate.

    Communication is my main motivation, if you want to reduce that to what you perceive as a behaviouristic reflex, or a marxist struggle or a spiritual search for soul or whatever grid you want to lay down on it, that's fine with me. Personally i see all those interpretational grids as mere descriptive aids in trying to deal with what is essentially a dynamic process whose finality we are perhaps only searching because we are trained to search for final goals behind processes that may just exist, be there, be beautiful? That's one, but there's a but:

    I started by saying that my reason was a complex of motivations, so the actual situation with regard to Dutch poetry and my respons to it being unsellable in the first place, is complicated by other reasons that originate in how i see society as it is evolving now. Those views are largely inspired by Deleuze & Guattari and supplemented by other readings and my day to day experience with programming. It boils down to me feeling that it is absolutely urgent to communicate the importance of poetry, not only as a useful additive, but as an essential ingredient in anything you try to accomplish with regard to your life and to the society you are part of. In the Starter file on Cathedral project i say somewhere that i consider it my duty as a father to investigate possibilities etcetera, i actually feel that to be so. I joke a lot because i don't think it helps at all to be serious all the time, but i am dead serious about that part. In your behaviouristic or pragmatist grid that will probably make me a complete nutcase, i actually rather enjoy that.

    Judson wrote:
    > this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
    > how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?

    Now i will not proceed here to go deeper into that, it's precisely a matter that i once hope to clarify by making the project. If you ever went to see the project, you'll agree that it isn't clear at all, i'm perfectly aware of that, but what i am trying to communicate is difficult, and i'm too stupid a guy to make it clear in a sec. In fact i need the detour of the project to clarify my own mind, i'm constantly writing on the verge of my ignorance and i go flat on my face on a regular basis. Now Deleuze used the very same words to describe his own writing, but he had easy talking, being ten times smarter than me and a respected philosopher and all, i'm just a poor poet from downtown Kessel-lo, Belgium...

    Judson wrote:
    > we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
    > motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
    > rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
    > art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
    > good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
    > programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
    > desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
    > the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
    > actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
    > (though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).

    plus a bit further Judson wrote:
    > if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
    > for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
    > like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
    > besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
    > popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
    > SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    > what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
    > we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
    > so, what's your goal?

    I consider this kind of reasoning to be a fairly striking example of how the meaning generating processes of programming are reflected in views on society and in society itself. Lev Manovich has pointed this out in his "The Language of New Media': the way with deal with programming and computers gets transcoded into society itself. You get to see basic desire as an object, encapsulated in higher 'levels of abstraction', so therefore art must be an instance of an individual desiring food, or, please do mention it, sex.

    I perceive this transcoding process to have enormous consequences, i feel that it gets to be catastrophical, a one way ticket in the way we deal with computers and the information boom. We urgently need to master our information, but in our need for speed to accomplish this, we're overlooking some basic alternatives due to our lack of consciousness of how the programming paradigma's and dogma's define our actions. We need to address these alternatives as urgently as we address our moderately succesful object-oriented programming approaches.

    And i am definitely convinced that i or rather someone with a little more brain than i have, one day will be able to proof that alternatives exist, that these alternatives are related to poetic functions or processes, that they are less mystic or error prone than you would expect and that they can be used in an efficient way. But i will not be able to convince anyone, i'm just too plain stupid and confused, it's half a miracle i succeed in anything i program allready...
    Voila, there's my goal.

    >
    > but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
    > the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, ...
    > who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
    > that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

    The next step i took when turning to net art is more problematic, because my natural instinct would be just to continue in the same scheme: do my stuff and see what happens. Now, as we all have learned from Doug Engelbart, scale does matter: the audience for international net art is huge in comparison to how many Dutch speaking persons would possibly ever read my poetry.
    This fact alone changes (or imho should change)one's decisions in either trying to make your net art into sellable products or trying to get by in some mass-market shunning shareware scheme as Geert suggested.
    It changes because you are aspiring to become part of something that has economic value, increasingly so. Net art is by its essence a potential mass-media, it has the potential of reaching thousands, even millions of users. Of course it's a mere potential (or is anyone present here with that kind of user log's, i wouldnt think so) but it makes that you are constantly aware of that potential, it infuses your artistic process with considerations and micro decisions of how to do things. These are bu no means expressions of value that i accredite but you know for instance that if you are going to work in an academically conceptual style you will get less users than if you start of with a sloganesk approach like 'We crash your browser with content". You know that if you strategically market your 'product' you will get more users than if you leave that, your economic value is, of course, the amount of viewers you get a day, so if you want it or not, you are as an artist inscribed in the economic order.

    My view is that those plain facts do change something about the contents of the word's 'artistic integrity', and that that goes for any artist, regardless of how you deal with my theoretic ramblings or lunacy if you want. And i think it's a great thing that this kind of discussion should be held here, and at Regina Celia Pinto's place and everywhere were Net artists are active. Let my kind of poetic and unprofessional philosophical messing about not keep you from having it continuously, because i don't think there are any definite answers

    judsoN wrote:
    > but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
    > the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, ...
    > who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
    > that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

    i think one should judge every day, and try to be right every day...things change...

    sorry for the length,

    dv

    .. what is left unfinished, cannot be undone...

    http://www.vilt.net

    Judson wrote:

    > if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
    > that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
    > so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
    > "artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
    > the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
    > other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
    > would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
    > expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
    > to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
    > a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
    > a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
    > for agreeing on colors.
    >
    >
    > this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
    > how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?
    >
    > we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
    > motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
    > rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
    > art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
    > good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
    > programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
    > desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
    > the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
    > actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
    > (though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).
    >
    > but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
    > the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, ...
    > who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
    > that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?
    >
    > if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
    > for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
    > like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
    > besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
    > popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
    > SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
    > what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
    > we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
    > so, what's your goal?
    >
    > --
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > PLASMA STUDII
    > art non-profit
    > stages * galleries * the web
    > PO Box 1086
    > Cathedral Station
    > New York, USA
    >
    > (on-line press kit)
    > http://plasmastudii.org
    >
  • Patrick Simons | Mon Apr 25th 2005 1:26 p.m.
    To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    Patrick

    Michael Szpakowski wrote:

    > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    > the roots of art.
    > Marx wouldn't have either.
    > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    > -although given the political evolution of many of
    > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    > Labour, loud and clear.
    >
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    > > getting
    > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    > > of shoes.
    > > >
    > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    > > materialistic,
    > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    > > something a marxist
    > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    > > art is a
    > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    > > worship out of a heart
    > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    > > It's pretty cold
    > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    > > celebration and worship
    > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    > >
    > > curt,
    > > i understand your response to the above statement,
    > > which i object to as
    > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    > > the discussion on
    > > selling net art, etc.
    > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    > > marxist position
    > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    > > anti-play. and the notion
    > > that someone would work as something other than an
    > > artist, then spend
    > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    > > to create something
    > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    > > about something is
    > > entirely a marxist one.
    > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    > > to "classical
    > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    > > possibly a "free market
    > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    > > shoes (unless you're
    > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    > > not marxism.
    > > ryan
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> 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
    > >
    >
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Apr 25th 2005 1:45 p.m.
    >Note that I'm not dissing people who want to make money off their
    >art, nor am I saying that making art for an audience of one is
    >better or more pure. I'm just objecting to the categorical
    >assertion that "art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    >getting what you really want."
    >

    ok, i agree with your point that "in every case" arguments are just
    unprovable, serve no purpose. if i came across that way, i stand
    corrected, and will claim responsibility for my sloppy verbiage. but
    that's not at all what i was saying and folks seem hasty to come to
    that conclusion.

    i was saying you can call selfless love something you want to
    achieve. you may want to be a person who does it (as we all
    probably do, but picture it in action quite distinctly, which is
    precisely the point). it's not that i'm proposing some rule that
    all selfless love is actually a selfish motivation, it's that people
    don't selflessly love and also want to be a person who never
    selflessly loves. if they don't want to love (like a heartbreak), it
    isn't really selfless then.

    i really hope we are just answering eachothers questions rather than
    trying to push points of view.
  • curt cloninger | Mon Apr 25th 2005 2:20 p.m.
    Patrick Simons wrote:

    > To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is
    > beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
    > resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
    > capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    > Patrick

    It is to me.

    I love the part in "Dig!" where the Brian Jonestown Massacre plays an 8-hour gig to a roomful of 10 people. I'll pass on the task of unraveling their motivations.

    http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol23/c_clon.shtml
    http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol25/c_clon.shtml
    http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol26/c_clon.shtml
    curt
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Apr 25th 2005 2:25 p.m.
    On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    hear, hear!

    > To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    > Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >
    > > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    > > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    > > the roots of art.
    > > Marx wouldn't have either.
    > > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    > > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    > > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    > > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    > > -although given the political evolution of many of
    > > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    > > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    > > Labour, loud and clear.
    > >
    > > best
    > > michael
    > >
    > > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    > > > getting
    > > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    > > > of shoes.
    > > > >
    > > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    > > > materialistic,
    > > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    > > > something a marxist
    > > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    > > > art is a
    > > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    > > > worship out of a heart
    > > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    > > > It's pretty cold
    > > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    > > > celebration and worship
    > > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    > > >
    > > > curt,
    > > > i understand your response to the above statement,
    > > > which i object to as
    > > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    > > > the discussion on
    > > > selling net art, etc.
    > > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    > > > marxist position
    > > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    > > > anti-play. and the notion
    > > > that someone would work as something other than an
    > > > artist, then spend
    > > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    > > > to create something
    > > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    > > > about something is
    > > > entirely a marxist one.
    > > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    > > > to "classical
    > > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    > > > possibly a "free market
    > > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    > > > shoes (unless you're
    > > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    > > > not marxism.
    > > > ryan
    > > >
    > > > +
    > > > -> 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
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://130.208.220.190/
    http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    http://130.208.220.190/panse
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Apr 25th 2005 2:29 p.m.
    >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
    >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
    >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
    >its consequences first:
    >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
    >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
    >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
    >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
    >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
    >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
    >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
    >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
    >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
    >being 'judgmental',

    this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Apr 25th 2005 2:35 p.m.
    >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
    >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
    >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
    >its consequences first:
    >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
    >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
    >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
    >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
    >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
    >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
    >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
    >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
    >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
    >being 'judgmental',

    this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.

    Thanks, Judson, that's reassuring. It's hardly a cool insight,though, merely
    truth getting through my thick head after years of indulging in fantasies...
    dv
  • Patrick Simons | Mon Apr 25th 2005 2:41 p.m.
    Hi Judson
    you've lost me now mate.

    "a pretty stable audience of well trained
    > >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves"

    Is this a group of ponies, that can rhyme?

    That I would pay to see, ironically

    best

    Patrick

    judsoN wrote:

    > >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
    > >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
    > >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
    > >its consequences first:
    > >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
    > >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
    > >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
    > >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
    > >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
    > >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
    > >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
    > >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
    > >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
    > >being 'judgmental',
    >
    > this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.
  • Matthew Mascotte | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3 p.m.
    once the market catches up to electronic art production,
    when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
    you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
    no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
    has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
    grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
    already established a "market" for certain types of production
    and influences things considerably. so we're already there...

    i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
    being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs...
    or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
    some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
    this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
    create and witness these works is an example of this.

    respects,

    matthew

    On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    >hear, hear!
    >
    >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    >> Patrick
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >>
    >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    >> > the roots of art.
    >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
    >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
    >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    >> > Labour, loud and clear.
    >> >
    >> > best
    >> > michael
    >> >
    >> > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> > > >
    >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    >> > > getting
    >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    >> > > of shoes.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    >> > > materialistic,
    >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    >> > > something a marxist
    >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    >> > > art is a
    >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    >> > > worship out of a heart
    >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    >> > > It's pretty cold
    >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    >> > > celebration and worship
    >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    >> > >
    >> > > curt,
    >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
    >> > > which i object to as
    >> > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    >> > > the discussion on
    >> > > selling net art, etc.
    >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    >> > > marxist position
    >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    >> > > anti-play. and the notion
    >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
    >> > > artist, then spend
    >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    >> > > to create something
    >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    >> > > about something is
    >> > > entirely a marxist one.
    >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    >> > > to "classical
    >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    >> > > possibly a "free market
    >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    >> > > shoes (unless you're
    >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    >> > > not marxism.
    >> > > ryan
    >> > >
    >> > > +
    >> > > -> 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
    >>
    >
    >--
    >Pall Thayer
    >artist/teacher
    >http://www.this.is/pallit
    >http://130.208.220.190/
    >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    >http://130.208.220.190/panse
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:04 p.m.
    Hey man, English is *not* my native language, I do make mistakes when I try
    to chat, no need to ridicule that, is there? It's pretty obvious I meant the
    audience for bloody poetry written in the bloody Dutch language is limited
    to a small bloody number of people, and that the composition of that
    audience doesn't change much over the years. No, you don't need to pay to
    see a Dutch speaking person, they're not that rare yet.

    dv

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Patrick Simons
    Sent: maandag 25 april 2005 22:41
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Art Market

    Hi Judson
    you've lost me now mate.

    "a pretty stable audience of well trained
    > >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves"

    Is this a group of ponies, that can rhyme?

    That I would pay to see, ironically

    best

    Patrick

    judsoN wrote:

    > >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
    > >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
    > >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
    > >its consequences first:
    > >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
    > >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
    > >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
    > >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
    > >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
    > >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
    > >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
    > >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
    > >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
    > >being 'judgmental',
    >
    > this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.
    +
    -> 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
  • Jeremy Zilar | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:06 p.m.
    Great answer Curt!
    Thanks! You said it!

    sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

    Curt Cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Jeremy,
    >
    > A well-known ongoing, grand scale net art piece:
    > http://www.worldofawe.net
    >
    > It's kind of like saying, "maybe garage rock hasn't attracted the
    > attention of top 40 radio yet because ..." When garage rock and top
    > 40 radio are largely incompatible. Maybe net art and
    > contemporary/future art collectors are largely incompatible. I don't
    > see it as a problem to be solved. Can an art movement be historically
    > legitimate, culturally relevant, and intellectually/aesthetically
    > rewarding without ever finding a market? Might it be all the more so
    > without a market?
    >
    > peace,
    > curt
    >
    > _
    >
    > At 2:46 PM -0400 4/24/05, jeremy wrote:
    >
    >> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    >> large enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    >> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    >> people to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking
    >> larger than the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
    >>
    >> -jeremy
    >>
    >>
    >> curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    >>> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel
    >>> sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
    >>> it's more filmic/motion design.
    >>>
    >>> ryan griffis wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>>> projects? i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only
    >>>> found promotion
    >>>> of their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a
    >>>> net art-based project...
    >>>> ryan
    >>>>
    >>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi Jason,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    >>>>> back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by
    >>>>> various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • Jeremy Zilar | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:14 p.m.
    I apologize, i came into this discussion midway, and failed to read the
    full extent of what happened previously... I will go back and read up on
    the material you referenced and then some...
    I would like to respond to your comment though.
    -jeremy

    Dirk Vekemans wrote:

    >Jeremy & all,
    >i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm , but that is not the issue).
    >
    >Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
    >
    >it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start working the selling way...
    >
    >just a thought,
    >dv
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Jeremy Zilar wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
    >>large
    >>enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
    >>I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
    >>people
    >>to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
    >>than
    >>the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
    >>
    >>-jeremy
    >>
    >>
    >>curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
    >>>
    >>>
    >>artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
    >>similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
    >>filmic/motion design.
    >>
    >>
    >>>ryan griffis wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
    >>>>projects?
    >>>>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
    >>>>of
    >>>>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
    >>>>art-based project...
    >>>>ryan
    >>>>
    >>>>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Hi Jason,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>back,
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
    >>>>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
    >>>>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
    >>
    >>
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
    >
  • Patrick Simons | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:16 p.m.
    Hi Matthew

    Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
    and what would the "action" be?
    and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
    AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe" humming ecstatically.
    And Andy Warhol... didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind taming the bastard art market
    AND
    "media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    > production"
    Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
    Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
    Patrick

    Matthew Mascotte wrote:

    >
    > once the market catches up to electronic art production,
    > when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
    > you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
    > no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
    > has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
    > grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
    > already established a "market" for certain types of production
    > and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
    >
    > i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
    > being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
    > sell-outs...
    > or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
    > some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
    > this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    > production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
    > create and witness these works is an example of this.
    >
    > respects,
    >
    > matthew
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
    > <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    > >hear, hear!
    > >
    > >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
    > is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
    > resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
    > capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    > >> Patrick
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    > >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    > >> > the roots of art.
    > >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
    > >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    > >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    > >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    > >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    > >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
    > >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    > >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    > >> > Labour, loud and clear.
    > >> >
    > >> > best
    > >> > michael
    > >> >
    > >> > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    > >> > > getting
    > >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    > >> > > of shoes.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    > >> > > materialistic,
    > >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    > >> > > something a marxist
    > >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    > >> > > art is a
    > >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    > >> > > worship out of a heart
    > >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    > >> > > It's pretty cold
    > >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    > >> > > celebration and worship
    > >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > curt,
    > >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
    > >> > > which i object to as
    > >> > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    > >> > > the discussion on
    > >> > > selling net art, etc.
    > >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    > >> > > marxist position
    > >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    > >> > > anti-play. and the notion
    > >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
    > >> > > artist, then spend
    > >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    > >> > > to create something
    > >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    > >> > > about something is
    > >> > > entirely a marxist one.
    > >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    > >> > > to "classical
    > >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    > >> > > possibly a "free market
    > >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    > >> > > shoes (unless you're
    > >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    > >> > > not marxism.
    > >> > > ryan
    > >> > >
    > >> > > +
    > >> > > -> 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
    > >>
    > >
    > >--
    > >Pall Thayer
    > >artist/teacher
    > >http://www.this.is/pallit
    > >http://130.208.220.190/
    > >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    > >http://130.208.220.190/panse
    > >
    > >
    > >+
    > >-> 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
    > >
    > >
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:27 p.m.
    That statement, "clamoring for a piece of the action", implies changing
    what you were doing and customizing it for this expected market. I would
    hate myself for doing that. No thanks. I'll just maintain my pace and if
    the art market doesn't catch up while I'm living, perhaps it will after
    life itself has stopped my progress. Having a "day job" that provides me
    with whatever I need actually gives me a sense of artistic freedom. I
    don't have to worry about whether or not someone's going to give me
    money for my art, although I don't mind it when they do. But my next
    meal doesn't depend on it.

    Pall

    Matthew Mascotte wrote:
    >
    > once the market catches up to electronic art production,
    > when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
    > you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
    > no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
    > has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
    > grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
    > already established a "market" for certain types of production
    > and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
    >
    > i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
    > being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs...
    > or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
    > some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
    > this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    > production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
    > create and witness these works is an example of this.
    >
    > respects,
    >
    > matthew
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    >>hear, hear!
    >>
    >>
    >>>To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    >>>Patrick
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    >>>>accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    >>>>the roots of art.
    >>>>Marx wouldn't have either.
    >>>>Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    >>>>that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    >>>>those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    >>>>academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    >>>>-although given the political evolution of many of
    >>>>those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    >>>>tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    >>>>Labour, loud and clear.
    >>>>
    >>>>best
    >>>>michael
    >>>>
    >>>>--- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    >>>>>
    >>>>>getting
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    >>>>>
    >>>>>of shoes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    >>>>>
    >>>>>materialistic,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    >>>>>
    >>>>>something a marxist
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    >>>>>
    >>>>>art is a
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    >>>>>
    >>>>>worship out of a heart
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>It's pretty cold
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>(but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    >>>>>
    >>>>>celebration and worship
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>curt,
    >>>>>i understand your response to the above statement,
    >>>>>which i object to as
    >>>>>well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    >>>>>the discussion on
    >>>>>selling net art, etc.
    >>>>>but to label that above statement as similar to a
    >>>>>marxist position
    >>>>>might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    >>>>>anti-play. and the notion
    >>>>>that someone would work as something other than an
    >>>>>artist, then spend
    >>>>>leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    >>>>>to create something
    >>>>>aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    >>>>>about something is
    >>>>>entirely a marxist one.
    >>>>>i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    >>>>>to "classical
    >>>>>economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    >>>>>possibly a "free market
    >>>>>economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    >>>>>shoes (unless you're
    >>>>>making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    >>>>>not marxism.
    >>>>>ryan
    >>>>>
    >>>>>+
    >>>>>-> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Pall Thayer
    >>artist/teacher
    >>http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>http://130.208.220.190/
    >>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    >>http://130.208.220.190/panse
    >>
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> 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
    >>
    >>
    >
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

    Lorna
    http://www.this.is/lorna
    _______________________________
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:37 p.m.
    hum hum hum
    hum HUM hum!

    (1 pony going dutch)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Patrick Simons
    Sent: maandag 25 april 2005 23:16
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Art Market

    Hi Matthew

    Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
    and what would the "action" be?
    and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
    AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe"
    humming ecstatically.
    And Andy Warhol... didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind
    taming the bastard art market
    AND
    "media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    > production"
    Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
    Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
    Patrick

    Matthew Mascotte wrote:

    >
    > once the market catches up to electronic art production,
    > when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
    > you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
    > no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
    > has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
    > grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
    > already established a "market" for certain types of production
    > and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
    >
    > i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
    > being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
    > sell-outs...
    > or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
    > some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
    > this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    > production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
    > create and witness these works is an example of this.
    >
    > respects,
    >
    > matthew
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
    > <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    > >hear, hear!
    > >
    > >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
    > is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
    > resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
    > capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    > >> Patrick
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    > >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    > >> > the roots of art.
    > >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
    > >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    > >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    > >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    > >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    > >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
    > >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    > >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    > >> > Labour, loud and clear.
    > >> >
    > >> > best
    > >> > michael
    > >> >
    > >> > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    > >> > > getting
    > >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    > >> > > of shoes.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    > >> > > materialistic,
    > >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    > >> > > something a marxist
    > >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    > >> > > art is a
    > >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    > >> > > worship out of a heart
    > >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    > >> > > It's pretty cold
    > >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    > >> > > celebration and worship
    > >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > curt,
    > >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
    > >> > > which i object to as
    > >> > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    > >> > > the discussion on
    > >> > > selling net art, etc.
    > >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
    > >> > > marxist position
    > >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    > >> > > anti-play. and the notion
    > >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
    > >> > > artist, then spend
    > >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    > >> > > to create something
    > >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    > >> > > about something is
    > >> > > entirely a marxist one.
    > >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    > >> > > to "classical
    > >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    > >> > > possibly a "free market
    > >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    > >> > > shoes (unless you're
    > >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    > >> > > not marxism.
    > >> > > ryan
    > >> > >
    > >> > > +
    > >> > > -> 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
    > >>
    > >
    > >--
    > >Pall Thayer
    > >artist/teacher
    > >http://www.this.is/pallit
    > >http://130.208.220.190/
    > >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    > >http://130.208.220.190/panse
    > >
    > >
    > >+
    > >-> 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
  • Matthew Mascotte | Mon Apr 25th 2005 3:44 p.m.
    i agree calmoring was poor wordsmithing...but i think
    the landscape for funding is so slim and competitive that
    artists "clamor" for what little there is. i wonder
    for example how many of the game proposals that were sent
    in last year for a Rhizome commission were done so by artists
    whos practises are solely engaged in game art...i think we
    saw plenty of proposals by artists that would never have
    ordinarily worked on gaming projects in their studios in
    isolation.

    respects,

    matthew

    On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 05:38PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >That statement, "clamoring for a piece of the action", implies changing
    >what you were doing and customizing it for this expected market. I would
    >hate myself for doing that. No thanks. I'll just maintain my pace and if
    >the art market doesn't catch up while I'm living, perhaps it will after
    >life itself has stopped my progress. Having a "day job" that provides me
    >with whatever I need actually gives me a sense of artistic freedom. I
    >don't have to worry about whether or not someone's going to give me
    >money for my art, although I don't mind it when they do. But my next
    >meal doesn't depend on it.
    >
    >Pall
    >
    >Matthew Mascotte wrote:
    >>
    >> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
    >> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
    >> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
    >> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
    >> has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
    >> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
    >> already established a "market" for certain types of production
    >> and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
    >>
    >> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
    >> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs...
    >> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
    >> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
    >> this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
    >> production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
    >> create and witness these works is an example of this.
    >>
    >> respects,
    >>
    >> matthew
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
    >>>hear, hear!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
    >>>>Patrick
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
    >>>>>accepting your characterisation of at least some of
    >>>>>the roots of art.
    >>>>>Marx wouldn't have either.
    >>>>>Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
    >>>>>that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
    >>>>>those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
    >>>>>academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
    >>>>>-although given the political evolution of many of
    >>>>>those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
    >>>>>tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
    >>>>>Labour, loud and clear.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>best
    >>>>>michael
    >>>>>
    >>>>>--- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>getting
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>of shoes.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>materialistic,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>something a marxist
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>art is a
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>worship out of a heart
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>It's pretty cold
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>(but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>celebration and worship
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>curt,
    >>>>>>i understand your response to the above statement,
    >>>>>>which i object to as
    >>>>>>well... i agree with many of your contributions to
    >>>>>>the discussion on
    >>>>>>selling net art, etc.
    >>>>>>but to label that above statement as similar to a
    >>>>>>marxist position
    >>>>>>might as well be red baiting. marx was not
    >>>>>>anti-play. and the notion
    >>>>>>that someone would work as something other than an
    >>>>>>artist, then spend
    >>>>>>leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
    >>>>>>to create something
    >>>>>>aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
    >>>>>>about something is
    >>>>>>entirely a marxist one.
    >>>>>>i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
    >>>>>>to "classical
    >>>>>>economist" or if you want to be more specific,
    >>>>>>possibly a "free market
    >>>>>>economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
    >>>>>>shoes (unless you're
    >>>>>>making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
    >>>>>>not marxism.
    >>>>>>ryan
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>+
    >>>>>>-> 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
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>Pall Thayer
    >>>artist/teacher
    >>>http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>http://130.208.220.190/
    >>>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
    >>>http://130.208.220.190/panse
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>+
    >>>-> 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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >--
    >_______________________________
    >Pall Thayer
    >artist/teacher
    >http://www.this.is/pallit
    >http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    >
    >Lorna
    >http://www.this.is/lorna
    >_______________________________
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue Apr 26th 2005 6:47 a.m.
    Matthew Mascotte brought up last year's Rhizome videogame art commission as an example of artists "clamoring" for crumbs. My proposal, Farklempt! was proposed as a way to break a creative loop I was stuck in. Luckily it was selected by the community - and this brings the discussion full circle.

    Farklempt! received a lot of press after its release last January. Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world came and interacted with it. This was tangible evidence to me that net art has legs.

    There are plenty of working models of self sustaining ephemeral media. Movies, Radio, TV, WWW, videogames, iTunes and NetFlix come to mind ... I am guessing that these models are based upon the publishing industry that preceded them.

    Speaking of books, on my commute I am currently listening to "The Speed of Sound, 1926-1930" by Scott Eyman. This is an interesting history of sound in film. It starts out describing several failed attempts at sound before "The Jazz Singer" captured the public's attention and completely changed the rules.

    .. stay with me a sec ...

    I recently finished "I Bought Andy Warhol" by Richard Polsky and "Emmergence" by Steven Johnson. The former recounts the author's personal odyssey to own a Warhol Silkscreen - and in the process describes some of the inner working of the gallery system. The latter is an easy read about emergent systems.

    Connecting the dots ... I suspect net art will be supported by the public, eventually. I am not sure the current top down "brick and mortar" gallery system is built for this.

    Bottoms Up.
    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Jason Van Anden | Wed Sep 7th 2005 6:48 a.m.
    Relevant to this old discussion - Paypal is apparently going to offer Micropayments:

    http://www.shareholder.com/paypal/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID1765

    Jason Van Anden
Your Reply